KULDEEP SINGH v. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY

SHRI P.P.KUNJOONJU, COMMANDANT,133 BN CRPF, SADAR HILLS, SENAPATI, MANIPUR.

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CRPF, PATNA.

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CRPF, PATNA. ----------- ….RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS

26.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Assailing the impugned order learned counsel confines the submission to the quantum of punishment only to urge that in the nature of allegations the punishment was disproportionate. He relies upon section 10(a) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 which reads as under:-

10. Recruitment.- (a) A candidate for enlistment in the Force must conform to the standard laid down in rule 11 below, must bear a good character and must be (a) citizen of India, or (b) a person who has migrated from Pakistan with the intention of permanently settling in India, or (c) a subject of Nepal or of a Portuguese possession in India, and if he comes under category (b) or (c) must be a person in whose favour a certificate of eligibility has been given by the Government of India. A candidate in whose case a certificate is necessary may, however, be appointed provisionally subject to the necessary certificate being eventually given to him by Government: Provided ex-convict, or Army or Police deserters shall not be enlisted.

- 2 - Issues of quantum of punishment are matters for the disciplinary authority to decide and not for the Courts to do so. More so, when it pertains to uniformed disciplined force. If the petitioner files a representation before the appellate authority in terms of section 10(a), as noticed above, the appellate authority is required to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order preferably within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. The appeal stands disposed with the aforesaid observations. ( Navin Sinha ) ( Kishore K. Mandal )