Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2001

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to For issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ in the nature of Mandamus challenging order dated.22-11-2000 issued by the Disciplinary Authority ordering for his dismissal from service as also against order dated.6-7-2001 of the Appellate Authority rejecting the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.SUDERSHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICIT OR GEN) T he Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable on 31.12.1979 and thereafter, he was promoted as Head Constable. On 02.02.2000, while on duty in Gandachera, Orissa, he is said to have committed acts of indiscipline. A charge, sheet, dated 07.08.2000, was issued containing three articles of charge. The allegation against the petitioner was that, while leading a party to go to market to purchase provisions, the petitioner left the party and being under the influence of alcohol, fired the weapon leading to injuries to a tribal woman. Departmental enquiry was conducted, in which the charges against the petitioner were held proved. On 02.11.2000, the disciplinary authority passed an order, dated 22.11.2000, dismissing the petitioner from service. The appeal preferred against it was also dismissed on 06.07.2001. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner states that he had an unblemished service and incident to disciplinary proceedings occurred in the process of his demonstrating the weapon to the youth who surrounded him. It is stated that firing the weapon was accidental. It is also alleged that the enquiry was not conducted properly and that the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority did not appreciate the matter from the correct perspective. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner resorted to gross acts of indiscipline and the punishment commensurate with the gravity of misconduct was imposed. Heard Sri A.Sudershan Reddy, the leaned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, the Assistant Solicitor General. The charges framed against the petitioner read as under: Article-I:- That No.790070052 HC/GD R.S.Pandey functioning as an Head of C/90 Bn, CRPF while Constable/GD/Party Commander committed an act of neglect of duty in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that he left the party, in the extremist infested market area of Gandachera and went alone along with his service weapon on 02.07.2000. Article-II:- That No.790070052 HC/GD R.S. Pandey of C/90 Bn, CRPF while functioning as an Head Constable/GD/Party Commander committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that he consumed Alcohol from Gandachera Market while on duty and went to a tea shop away from the Gandachera Market with his service weapon under influence of Alcohol on 02.07.2000. Article-III:- That No.790070052 HC/GD R.S.Pandey functioning as an Head of C/90 Bn, CRPF while Constable/GD/Party Commander committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that while under influence of Alcohol, he exposed his service weapon and used for unauthorized purpose of demonstrating functions to civilians and in the process, one round was fired from the said service weapon causing bullet injury to Smt. Yudopati Chakma of Gancha Bagam, Gandachera on 02.07.2000 at 17.00 hours”. From a perusal of the charge sheet and supporting documents, it becomes evident that the petitioner led a party of police to the market at Gandachera purchasing the provisions. However, he disappeared suddenly from the party along with his service weapon. Thereafter, it emerged that he consumed alcohol while on duty and under the influence of intoxication, he fired the service weapon, resulting in injuries to a tribal woman, by name Smt. Yudopati Chakma. This incident naturally led to commotion and a delicate situation for the paramilitary force. In his explanation, the petitioner admitted the factum of intoxication and firing of the weapon. He only tried to minimize the gravity of the incident by stating that he had to operate the weapon in the course of explaining to the youth about its function. The three acts attributed to the petitioner, namely (a) his leaving party abruptly even while leading it; (b) being intoxicated while on duty; and (c) firing the service weapon leading to injuries to a civilian, are very serious in nature. In the departmental enquiry, all the three charges were held proved. The disciplinary authority virtually was left with no alternative, except to impose the punishment of dismissal. There did not exist any mitigating circumstances in favour of the petitioner. The record discloses that he has been censured twice before he came to be dismissed. The petitioner is not able to point out any serious procedural defect in the departmental enquiry or at any other stage. This Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:06.08.2008