Shri Abdulkadar Imamsab v. Union of India & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 11. By this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the orders dated 10.3.2003, 27.1.2009 and 16.6.2009 passed by Commandant 97 Bn,C.R.P.F., Dy.Inspector General of Police, Pune Range, CRPF, Pune and Inspector General of Police, CRPF, New Mumbai, respectively. By these orders, the petitioner has been…
Judgment
Mr.R.V.Bansode h/f Mr Avinash Birajdar, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Mr. Jaydeep S Dev, for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & K.K.TATED,JJ. DATE : 15/11/2011 PC:
By this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the orders dated 10.3.2003, 27.1.2009 and 16.6.2009 passed by Commandant 97 Bn,C.R.P.F., Dy.Inspector General of Police, Pune Range, CRPF, Pune and Inspector General of Police, CRPF, New Mumbai, respectively. By these orders, the petitioner has been dismissed from service by invoking the powers under Section 12(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (for short, "the said Act"). The action under section 12(1) was taken in view of over- stay from leave for about 150 days with effect from 4.8.2002 to 31.01.2003. There is no dispute that the 2 petitioner had been held guilty of an offence under section 10(M) of the said Act and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for 15 days. Mr Bansode, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited our attention to section 11 of the said Act and submitted that since the allegation against the petitioner was only of overstay, the concerned authorities ought to have imposed minor punishments as contemplated by section 11.
In short, the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the allegation of overstay against the petitioner. We have perused all the orders impugned in the present writ petition. It appears that on five earlier occasions between 1992 and 2001 the petitioner had overstayed and leniency was shown by the concerned authorities by awarding minor punishments. Keeping that in view, the concerned authorities appeared to have passed the order of dismissal under section 12(1) of the said Act. Section 12(1) provides that every person sentenced under this Act to imprisonment may be dismissed from the Force, and shall further be liable to forfeiture of pay, allowance and any other moneys due to him as well as of any medals and decorations received by him. From bare perusal of this provision, it is clear that the concerned authorities have taken action of dismissal of the petitioner from service in view of the orders passed by the 3 competent court of imprisonment.
Operative part
There is no dispute that the petitioner suffered the punishment of imprisonment. We do not find any error of law committed by the concerned authorities in dismissing the petitioner from service keeping in view his earlier conduct and having reached a conclusion that the petitioner is incorrigible and minor punishments did not make any effect on him. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. (K.K.Tated,J.) (D. B. Bhosale, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 — s. 12(1).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 15 Nov 2011. The bench was K K TATED, D B BHOSALE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.