G.K.Reddy v. The Union of India, reptd., by its

Order

- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside orders dated 31-3-1998 and 27-5-1998 passed by respondent Nos.3 and 2 respectively,

whereby respondent No.2 confirmed the said order of respondent No.3. Heard Kum.M.Kiranmayee, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri M.Ganga Rao, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government, for the respondents. The petitioner was working as Hawaldar (Head Constable) in Central Reserve Police Force. He was on duty in Jammu & Kashmir when he availed leave in connection with the marriage of his sister. The marriage was performed on 16-6-1996 and the function in connection therewith was scheduled for 20-6-1996. On the same day there was a check in the quarter occupied by the petitioner at Group Centre, CRPF, Hyderabad, resulting in finding of seven bottles of liquor, which led to initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, wherein the following two charges have been framed: “Article-I: That the said No.731130125 Naik G.K.Reddy of 32 Bn. CRPF while functioning as Naik during June, 1996 committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force U/s.11 (i) of CRPF Act, 1949, in that he kept 7 bottles of liquor in his possession at his quarter at Group Centre, CRPF, Hyderabad, where possession and consumption of liquor was prohibited. Article II: That during November, 1996 and while functioning the aforesaid office the said No.731130125 Nk. G.K.Reddy was guilty of misconduct and disobedience of order in his capacity as a member of the Force punishable under Section 11(i) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that he altered the departure date and time as 14-11-1996 in the movement order issued to him by Group Centre, CRPF, Hyderabad to move to 32 Bn. to overstay at Group Centre, CRPF, Hyderabad, unauthorizedly”. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and based on his report dated 5-3-1998, respondent No.3 passed order dated 31-3-1998, wherein, while accepting the finding of guilt recorded by the Enquiry Officer, he imposed the penalty of reduction of the rank of the petitioner from Head Constable to Constable for two years with effect from 7-4-1998 to 6-4-2000. On appeal, respondent No.2 confirmed the said order. Hence, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition questioning the said two orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.3 failed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and passed order mechanically basing on the findings in the enquiry report. Alternatively, the learned counsel submitted that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is too disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. The learned Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government, opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as the petitioner belongs to a disciplined Force, the penalty imposed on him cannot be said to be either excessive or disproportionate to the proved misconduct. I have carefully considered the submissions of both the counsel. In pursuance of the notice given by respondent No.3 to submit his explanation on the proposed punishment based on the enquiry report, the petitioner submitted his explanation, wherein he sought to explain his stand regarding both the charges. As regards the first charge, the petitioner stated that the marriage of his sister got fixed for 16-6-1996; that his brother, who was abroad, brought seven bottles of liquor and kept them in his quarters; that, at that time, the petitioner was performing his duties in Srinagar; and that, therefore, he was not present in the quarters. As regards the second charge, the petitioner sought to explain that though the movement order was issued on 12-11-1996, the Chief Hawaldar Major-Sri Satgiri, instructed him to help the 32nd Battalion Store Party in collecting some Store items; and that, on his instructions, the date on the movement order was changed to 14-11-1996. A perusal of the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 shows that there is not even a reference to the explanation offered by the petitioner let alone considering the same. The impugned order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. If the reasons stated in his explanation are found correct, the petitioner is entitled for exoneration. At any rate, having considered the nature of the charges, I am of the view that reduction of the rank of the petitioner from Head Constable to Constable for a period of two years appears to be disproportionate the proven misconduct. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is working in a disciplined Force. However, the respondents are bound to take into consideration the human conduct qua the surrounding circumstances in imposing the punishment. It hardly needs emphasis imposing penalty disproportionate to the gravity of charges affects the morale of the members of the Force. The orders of respondents 3 and 2 are, therefore, quashed. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider imposition of a lesser punishment on the petitioner by duly taking into account the explanation offered by him and pass a fresh order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:24-11-2008 MNR