RATTAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was proceeded against under Section 11 (1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Three charges were framed against the petitioner. The first charge was that he entered into a second marriage, the second charge was that he was maintaining a second family outside the campus at Dhaligaon. District Bongaigaon (Assam) and the third charge was that he was absent from duty on different occasions.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner he had not re -married and that when his wife Smt. Brijesh Kumari appeared in the witness box. She supported the plea put across by the petitioner, it is submitted that the Enquiry Officer exonerated him of the charges but notwithstanding this fact. the petitioner has been punished. He stands dismissed from service vide order dt. 1st March 1999 passed by the Commandant. Petitioner took resort to departmental remedies but was unable to get any relief. He has approached this Court.

(3.) THE question which is required to be gone into is as to whether the punishment of dismissal could be imposed when proceedings were taken under section 11(1) of the Act referred to above. This issue stands decided by Gauhati High Courl in the case of Deep Chand Vs. Union of India. 2001 (4) SCT 1965. H.K. Sema. J. now the Lord Chief Justice of this Court, while deciding I he case expressed an opinion that under Section 11 (1) of the afore -. said Act. major punishment i.e. of dismissal from service could not be imposed. What is said in this regard is being reproduced below: - "In the present case, admittedly the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner has been made under the procedure prescribed under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules. 1955 which is a major punishment. Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules only prescribed procedure for award of major punishment. It is not a penal provision itself. This apart, the petitioner has been charge -sheeted under the provisions of Section II (1) of the Act, the disciplinary proceedings initialed against him under that section, he was allowed to defend himself by cross -examining the prosecution witnesses under that section, and therefore, the Disciplinary Authority is not permitted to convert a charge under Section 11 (1) which is minor penalty to that a major penalty for the completion of the Enquiry This amounted to denial of reasonable opportunities to defend himself and is hit by Article 311 of the Constitution. "...Having said so. I am of the view that the petitioner deserves minor punishment as provided under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act. 1949 under which he has been charge sheeted. To that extent, the impugned order of Disciplinary Authority as well as appellate authority are quashed and set aside." The petitioner in the present case also stands proceeded against under Section 11 (1) of the aforesaid Act and stands dismissed from service. Therefore, in view of the interpretation placed on the aforementioned Section, the order impugned passed against the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner shall stand reinstated with all consequential benefits. The respondents shall however, be at liberty to pass a fresh order and in case a view is taken that the act of the petitioner stands proved and he requires to be punished, then, the punishment to be inflicted should commensurate with the lapse attributed to the petitioner and a fresh order, as indicated above, would be passed in accordance with the law. Disposed of as such.