Vinod Kumar Singh v. The Union of India & Ors

For the Respondents : Mr. Raghib Ahsan (ASST.SG), Senior Advocate. ====================================================== PRESENT: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN ORDER 3 17-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This writ has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) For quashing of the order of respondent no.1- I.G.P. issued vide memo no. R.XIII 18/2010 Adm. 7 dated 08.10.2010 whereby and whereunder, he has upheld the order dated 19.02.10 of respondent no.2 and rejected the revision petition of the petitioner. (ii) For quashing of the last portion of the order of respondent no.2 issued vide memo no. R.XII-6/2009- Estt.3 dated 19.2.2010 and communicated petitioner vide memo no. R.XIII-6/2009- ESTT.3 dated 20.2.2010 whereby and 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.7337 of 2012 (3) dt.17-04-2012 whereunder 1/3rd compensation pension and gratuity has been deducted by way of punishment. (iii) For a direction to the respondents to release full compensation pension and full gratuity to the petitioner with interest and cost forth with.

3. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is not in dispute that a criminal case bearing No.01 of 2009 was initiated against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class-cum-Commandant 19 BN CRPF RSP Trainees Hostel- Sector-V Rourkela-Orissa in which the charges were as follows:- a) He consumed liquor frequently even during day time and duty hours. Specifically on 11.05.2009 afternoon he consumed liquor with men in the lines. b) He abused Coy 2 I/C, Coy Commander and Commandant in a filthy language in the mess and lines on 11.05.2009 after consuming liquor. c) He resorted to unfair practices, formed a group of his own and is partisan in his behaviour.

4. The said Court considered the matter in detail, including the defence of the petitioner and evidence etc. and it was held that he had admitted to all his guilt and had stated that the Court may pass any sentence and he will accept it. Considering the plea of the accused, the Court sentenced him to “Imprisonment till rising of Court along with a fine of Rs.500.00 failure to pay up the fine amount will entail him for 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.7337 of 2012 (3) dt.17-04-2012 further 15 days of simple imprisonment.” The said order was passed under Section 10 (a) (e) & (n) of CRPF Act 1949 on

16.05.2009 which has not been challenged by the petitioner before any authority.

5. After the said order of the criminal Court the respondents-authorities considered the matter in detail, especially in view of the order of imprisonment given by the Court and dismissed the petitioner from service with effect from 16.05.2009 vide order dated 16.05.2009 in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 12(1) of CRPF Act,

1949. It transpires that against the said order dated 16.05.2009 of the Commandant-19 BN CRPF RSP Trainees, the petitioner filed an appeal before the D.I.G.P., C.R.P.F. Chennai and after considering the record of past service/ good record and the family he has to maintain/support, the appellate authority in exercise of powers conferred upon it under Rule 28 of CRPF Rules took a lenient view and modified the punishment of „dismissal from service‟ to that of „compulsory retirement from service with 2/3rd of compensation pension and gratuity‟ with effect from 16.05.2009.

6. The said order of the appellate authority dated

19.02.2010 was challenged by the petitioner in CWJC No.7917 of 2010, but a Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.7337 of 2012 (3) dt.17-04-2012 petition with a direction to the petitioner to avail the remedy by filing revision before the concerned I.G.P. who was directed not only to condone the delay in filing of the revision but was also directed to consider the same in accordance with law as early as possible, in any case within six months from the date of receipt of the revision application before him provided the revision was filed within one month from the date of the said order.

7. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision before the Inspector General, CRPF, Southern Sector, Hyderabad challenging the appellate order of the authority dated

19.02.2010. However, the revisional Court also considered the entire matter by virtue of powers vested in it under Rule-29 of CRPF Rules, 1955, but found no cogent reason to interfere with the order dated 19.02.2010 of DIG, CRPF, Chennai and confirmed the action taken against the petitioner by the said appellate authority and rejected his revision petition being devoid of merit vide his order dated 08.10.2010.

8. So far the objection of the petitioner against the said orders of the authorities is concerned, it is apparent from the record itself that the petitioner himself pleaded guilty before the criminal Court. Furthermore, the respondents- authorities even thereafter considered all the three charges on 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.7337 of 2012 (3) dt.17-04-2012 the basis of statements of witnesses and documents adduced during the trial and all the three charges were found to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt although the petitioner was given ample opportunity at every stage of trial to defend his case and also afforded opportunity to cross examine the prosecution witnesses which he availed. The petitioner did not even challenge the order of the criminal Court before any authority.

9. So the quantum of punishment concerned, according to the Rules when a personnel of CRPF is punished with imprisonment for any period he had to be removed and hence punishment of dismissal from service was commensurate with the gravity of offence committed by him, but in spite of that the appellate and the revisional authorities took a lenient view and modified the punishment of dismissal given to him by the Commandant and substituted it with compulsory retirement from service with 2/3rd of compensation pension and gratuity with effect from 16.05.2009.

10. Furthermore Rule 40 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 provides that if a Government Servant is compulsorily retired from service as a penalty, the authority may impose such penalty, pension or gratuity or both at a rate not less than two thirds and not more than full compensation pension or 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.7337 of 2012 (3) dt.17-04-2012 gratuity or both admissible to him on the date of compulsory retirement.

11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders of the authorities concerned, nor does it find any merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sunil/- (S.N. Hussain, J)