Uma Shankar son of Sri Shyam Sundar, resident of Village Dakore, PO PS Dakore v. 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home, North Block, PO
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.15 of 2021 ---- Uma Shankar son of Sri Shyam Sundar, resident of Village Dakore, PO PS Dakore, Tehsil Orai, District Jalone, Uttar Pradesh. … Appellant Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home, North Block, PO PS and District New Delhi. 2. The Deputy General of Police, Central Zone, Central Reserve Police Force, Salt Lake, PO PS Salt Lake, Kolkata. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Middle Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, TC-32/5, Bibhuti Fund, Gomati Nagar, Lucknow, PO PS Gomati Nagar, Lucknow. 4. The Deputy Inspector General, Amethi Range, Group Central Premises, Central Reserve Police Force, Lucknow, PO PS Amethi, District Lucknow. 5. The Commandant, 196 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Seraikella, PO Kuchai, PS Seraikella, District Seraikella Kharsawan. … … Respondents ---- WITH L.P.A. No.17 of 2021 ---- Om Prakash Prasad S/o Sri Ramashreya Prasad, R/o Village- Bichli Bandu, PO PS Khampar, Tehsil Bhatpur Rani, Dist Deoria, Uttar Pradesh 274702. … Appellant Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home, North Block, PO PS North Block, District New Delhi. 2. The Deputy General of Police, Central Zone, Central Reserve Police Force, Salt Lake, PO PS Salt Lake, Kolkata. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Middle Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, TC-32/5, Bibhuti Fund, Gomati Nagar, Lucknow, PO PS Gomati Nagar, Lucknow. 4. The Deputy Inspector General, Amethi Range, Group Central Premises, Central Reserve Police Force, Lucknow, PO PS & District Lucknow. 5. The Commandant, 196 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, PS PO Kuchai, District Seraikella Kharsawan. … … Respondents ---- WITH L.P.A. No.19 of 2021 ---- Shah Hanif S/o Md. Fakir resident of Chstiya Colony, CIDCO/M-6, House No.8/825/113, PS CIDCO-N-7, PO CID N-6, Dist. Aurangabad, Maharashtra. … Appellant Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home, North Block, PO PS Central Secretariat, District New Delhi. 2 2. The Deputy General of Police, Central Zone, Central Reserve Police Force, Salt Lake, PO PS Salt Lake, Kolkata. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Middle Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, TC-32/5, Bibhuti Fund, Gomati Nagar, PO PS Gomati Nagar, Lucknow. 4. The Deputy Inspector General, Amethi Range, Group Central Premises, Central Reserve Police Force, Lucknow, PO PS & District Lucknow. 5. The Commandant, 196 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, PS PO Kuchai, District Seraikella Kharsawan. … … Respondents ---- WITH L.P.A. No.20 of 2021 ---- Balwant Singh S/o Teze Bhai, R/o Village Raja Yata, PO PS Howrah, Dist Panchmahal, Gujarat. … Appellant Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home, North Block, PO PS Central Secretariat, District New Delhi. 2. The Deputy General of Police, Central Zone, Central Reserve Police Force, Salt Lake, PO PS Salt Lake, Kolkata. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Middle Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, TC-32/5, Bibhuti Fund, Gomati Nagar, Lucknow, PO PS Gomati Nagar, Lucknow. 4. The Deputy Inspector General, Amethi Range, Group Central Premises, Central Reserve Police Force, Lucknow, PO PS & District Lucknow. 5. The Commandant, 196 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, PS PO Kuchai, District Seraikella Kharsawan. … … Respondents
Legal Reasoning
---- CORAM : SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Appellants : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I. Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, CGC ---- 09/ 09.05.2023 Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following, (Per Ananda Sen, J.)
Decision
O R D E R 1. By filing these Letters Patent Appeals, the respective appellants have assailed the order passed by learned Single Judge on 20.10.2020 in W.P.(S) No.4132 of 2014, W.P.(S) No.4134 of 2014, W.P.(S) No.4123 of 2014 and W.P.(S) No.4120 of 2014, whereby the respective writ petitions filed by the petitioners-appellants, challenging the order of punishment imposed on the respective petitioners, have been dismissed. The writ petition was filed 3 challenging the punishment order, appellate order and the revisional order passed against the writ petitioners in a departmental proceeding. 2. The brief facts leading to these letters patent appeals are that the petitioners-appellants were proceeded in departmental proceedings. It is alleged that one Hawaldar Harpinder Singh with his service weapon started indiscriminate firing, which resulted in death of six of his colleagues. The allegations against all these appellants and others is that they fled and did not take immediate action and as a result of their cowardice, six persons were killed. If they had neutralized the said Harpinder Singh earlier, lives of those CRPF personnel could have been saved. The charge against each of these petitioners are reflected below in a tabular form:- LPA 15 of 2021 Appellant Uma Shankar 17 of 2021 Om Prakash Prasad Charge Uma Shankar along with Rashit Ahmed, Raghvendra Singh and G.S. Gheware gathered in Morcha No.5 at roof top from their respective locations in search of a safe place to hide. Harpinder Singh was moving freely at the terrace for 02 hours just in front of them at the distance of 20 feet, but they have done nothing to neutralize Harpinder Singh. They killed Harpinder Singh only when Jadhav Bhav Singh was killed by him. Had they reacted timely, the life of Jadhav Bhav Singh would have been saved. Om Prakash was on santry duty at OC’s residence Morcha. At that time he has taken position in his Morcha after hearing the sound of first blast of firing and was ready to take on any body coming towards that side. He saw Harpinder Singh coming towards him firing in the air and shouting. Harpinder Singh went ahead towards Kuchai market crossing him and changes the empty magazine of his weapon with loaded one in front of him and went back inside the camp. Harpinder Singh was exposed to him for 10-15 minutes but he did not react at all and just kept waiting. It shows his inability to react in a critical situation and irresponsible attitude in discharge of his duties as a sentry. He has shown cowardice and inaction. 19 of 2021 20 of 2021 Balwant Singh left his Morcha and accompanied Shah Hanif Shah Hanif was detailed as Santry in Mess Morcha. He the coy personnel who were evacuating to P.T. Rao for treatment though it was not required. He left his duty place. If he would not have left his Morcha, it would have been possible that Harpinder Singh would not have been able to kill M.L. Patil. Balwant Singh was on Santry duty at Morcha No.1 on main gate. During his duty, he was sure about the sounds of firing and shouts of Harpinder Singh. Harpinder Singh remained towards the O.C. residence near his Morcha on the road, heading to Kuchai Market for quite sometime, but he did not do anything to neutralize Harpinder Singh. Harpinder Singh replaced the empty magazine of his weapon with loaded one in front of him and went back inside the camp though the same was crossing his Morcha. Harpinder Singh was exposed to him for 10-15 minutes but he did not react at all and just kept waiting. He has shown cowardice inaction and failed in discharge of his duties as a Santry. 4 3. In the Departmental Proceeding, Enquiry Witnesses were examined and after giving opportunity to these appellants and other co- delinquents, these appellants were awarded with punishment of “Dismissal from Service” vide order dated 08.11.2012. 4. After being inflicted with punishment, the petitioners-appellants preferred departmental appeals and thereafter after rejection of their departmental appeals, the petitioner-appellants also preferred revision before the Revisional Authority, which also stood dismissed. Challenging the orders of punishment, the orders passed by the Appellate Authority as also the Revisional Authority, the petitioners/appellants approached this Court in writ jurisdiction by filing respective writ petitions, which also stood dismissed. Thus, the appellants have preferred these appeals challenging the orders passed in their respective writ petitions. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has taken only one ground in these appeals. It is his contention that when there was common chargesheet leveling same and similar allegations against all the delinquent employees and when the proceeding was common against all, separate punishments could not have been awarded. Learned Senior Counsel submits that this fact has been lost sight of by learned Single Judge, thus, the entire matter needs reconsideration. 6. Learned A.S.G.I. appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that though from the chargesheet details of overt acts of each of the persons has not been reflected, but, during the Departmental Proceeding, evidence has been led in respect of overt acts of each individual. Considering the aforesaid overt acts, different sets of punishments have been inflicted upon the respective delinquent employees, which is permissible. 7. After hearing the parties, we have gone through the entire documents. Charge against each of these appellants have been reproduced at paragraph 2 above. From the aforesaid charge, it is clear that the allegations are similar. Further, it is clear that no individual distinguishing overt act is reflected in the chargesheet. If we carefully see the chargesheet, the allegation against Uma Shankar, Om Prakash Prasad, Shah Hanif, Balwant Singh (appellants) and others are same, whereas Uma Shankar, Om Prakash Prasad, Shah Hanif, Balwant Singh (appellants) have been awarded punishment of “Dismissal from Service” and others were inflicted with lesser punishment. Along with the appellants, several others were also departmentally proceeded against. They are No.870450126 HC/GD A.S. 5 Khude, No.871111153 HC/GD B.N. Trimukhi, No.880380201 HC/GD Karamjeet Singh, No.913252538 HC/GD Ramdhari Pal, No.913201935 HC/GD Sanna Virappa and No.913175776 HC/GD P.N. Chakraborty, No. 913270697 HC/GD S.K. Dubey, No.911164991 HC/GD Dilip Ghewande, No.921274877 CT/GD Tukaram Jadhav, No.921142338 CT/GD Dwarika Ram, No.075211477 CT/GD Mahendra Vaman Palus Pagar, No.075025738 CT/GD Umesh Yadav, No.075252774 CT/GD Sukhdev Aware, No.075053768 CT/GD Santosh Pawar, No.075225336 CT/GD Puran Singh, No.075182478 CT/GD Izharuddin, No.075071739 CT/GD Rashid Ahmed, No.075184712 CT/GD Raghvender Singh and 075250811 CT/GD G.S. Ghewane. The charges against them and the punishment awarded are as follows: - Delinquent Charge No.870450126 HC/GD Khude A.S. No.871111153 HC/GD Trimukhi B.N. No.880380201 HC/GD Karamjeet Singh No.913252538 HC/GD Ramdhari Pal No.913201935 HC/GD Sanna Virappa No.913175776 HC/GD P N Chakraborty He was detailed as guard commander for morchas No.03 05 and OC resident went to the morcha No.05 at the roof top but did not direct the sentry to neutralize HC/GD Harpinder Singh nor himself tried anything. Further he went to morcha No.07 and remained there till the incident was over. He has shown inaction and cowardice. He was detailed as guard commander of night morcha No.07 and night morcha No.02. He directed the sentry of morcha No.07 to react only of HC/GD Harpinder Singh comes near the morcha to kill him and not to react otherwise. He also retained himself in morcha No.07 and did nothing. He has shown cowardice and inaction on his part. He was performing the duties of CQMH of the coy and was present in OC’s office at that time. When he saw HC/GD Harpinder Singh cocking the riffle and aiming towards the OC’s office, he just shouted on HC/GGD Harpinder Singh and tree. Thereafter he went near the bath room outside the camp and remained there till the end of the incident. He has shown cowardice and did not react at all. took cover behind a He was performing the duties of Kote NCO and was detailed as the guard commander of morcha No.01 near entry gate of the camp. He did not take any initiative to direct his sentries / control HC/GD to overpower Harpinder Singh and he himself remained in the Kote during the entire incident showing cowardice. He was performing the duties of main gate guard commander and guard commander of morcha No.04 and 06 at main gate. He did not try to control HC/GD though he was having his Harpinder Singh even personal weapon with him. He engaged himself in evacuating to No.913130031 HC/GD P T Rao to avoid critical situation at coy location. He was detailed to perform the duties of R P Havindar in the coy. On hearing the sounds of firing he along with 05-06 other personnel rushed towards small toilets and took shelter there. Thereafter, he took position in one of the houses in the block building which was adjacent to the camp and remained there till the end. He has shown cowardice and inaction. Punishment awarded Compulsory Retirement Compulsory Retirement Compulsory Retirement Compulsory Retirement Exonerated Exonerated 6 Delinquent Charge No.913270697 HC/GD S K Dubey He was on patrolling duty in the camp. He did not follow the security drills and hide himself between OC’s residence and B.D.O. residence. He saw HC/GD Harpinder Singh running towards OC residence but did not react to stop HC/GD Harpinder Singh. He has shown the inaction and cowardice on his part. Punishment awarded Compulsory Retirement No.911164991 HC/GD Ghewande Dilip He was on patrolling duty. He ran away outside the camp and hid himself there till the end of the incident, which is indicative of the inaction and cowardice on his part. Compulsory Retirement No.921274877 CT/GD Tukaram Jadhav No.921142338 CT/GD Dwarika Ram No.075211477 CT/GD Mahendra Vaman Pagar Palus No.075025738 CT/ GD Umesh Yadav No.075252774 CT/GD Sukhdev Aware He instigated Shri Bikau Singh A/C on his cell phone about the heated arguments between CHM I.N. Khairnar and HC/GD Harpinder Singh at about 2000 Hours though the matter was pacified by that time. When firing on his coy HC/GD Harpinder Singh started commander and others, CT/GD Tukaram Jadhav fled away out of the camp and made no efforts to control HC/GD Harpinder Singh. He has shown extreme cowardice. He was performing the duty in escort of Shri Bikau Singh A/C. He did not come out to save the life of Shri Bikau Singh, A/C and hid himself below the charpoy in the lines. He has shown cowardice and dereliction in the discharge of his duties. He was detailed as sentry in night morcha No.02 behind Coy Mandir. At the time of firing he was in the morcha, the back side of the office tent is completely visible from his position. On hearing the sound of firing he took position in the morcha. He was told by SI/GD R L Verma that HC/GD Harpinder Singh was firing in the camp. He remained in the morcha listening the sound of firing and shouts of HC/GD Haripinder Singh and did not react which shows cowardice and inaction. He has failed in the discharge of his duties as a sentry. He was detailed as sentry in morcha No.02. He was present in the morcha and had seen HC/GD Haripinder Singh killing Sri Bikau Singh A/C but did not do any thing to stop HC/GD Harpinder Singh HC/GD Harpinder Singh had passed below his morcha but he did not react at all and let HC/GD Harpinder Singh move freely. He has shown cowardice, inaction and failed in the discharge of his duties as a sentry. He was performing the duties of a sentry in morcha No.04 at the roof top. He was sure that HC/GD Harpinder Singh was firing and shouting in the camp. He should have done something to control HC/GD Harpinder Singh from roof top morcha as the movements of HC/GD Haripinder Singh were quite visible from there. But he did nothing and just remained a silen spectator. He has shown irresponsible behaviour and cowardice in the discharge of his duties as a sentry. Compulsory Retirement Compulsory Retirement Stoppage of Increment for 7 years without cumulative effect Stoppage of Increment for 5 years without cumulative effect Stoppage of Increment for 5 years without cumulative effect No.075053768 CT/ GD Santosh Pawar He was detailed for sentry duty in morcha No.07. He was informed by CT/GD Dilip Gawande from the lines about the firing done by HC/GD Haripinder Singh. As the movements of HC/GD Haripinder Singh was quite visible from there, he should have done something to control HC/GD Haripinder Singh from roof top morcha. But he did nothing and remained a silent spectator. It shows his irresponsible behaviour and cowardice in the discharge of his duties as a sentry. of Stoppage Increment for 5 years without cumulative effect 7 Delinquent Charge Puran and No.075225336 CT/GD Singh No.075182478 CT/GD Izharuddin Hid themselves in coy signal centre and mounted the LMG at the door. HC/GD Haripinder Singh was quite visible to both of them for some time from the door wandering in the verandah while taking AKM/Ammunition of SI/GD Nizamul Haque and ammunition of SI/GD Bandhu Oraon but they did not fire on him and let him go. They have shown cowardice and inaction. No.075071739 CT/GD Rashid Ahmed, No.075184712 CT/GD Raghvender Singh No.075250811 CT/GD Ghewane G.S. and They gathered in morcha No.05 at roof top from their respective locations in search of a safe place to hide. HC/GD Haripinder Singh was moving freely at the terrace for 02 hours just in front of them at the distance of 20 feet but they have done nothing to neutralize HC/GD Haripinder Singh. They killed HC/GD Haripinder Singh only when HC/GD Jadhav Bhav Singh was killed by him. Had they reacted timely the life of HC/GD Jadhav Bhav Singh could have been saved. Punishment awarded Exonerated Stoppage of Increment for 5 years without cumulative effect to Rashi Ahmed and Stoppage of Increment for 3 years without cumulative effect to Raghvendra Singh and G.S. Ghewani 8. Thus, it is clear that for the same and similar set of charges, and somewhat same overt act, different sets of punishments were awarded by following different yardsticks. The fact that the delinquent employees were inflicted with different sets of punishment for the charge is not disputed. The respondents had tried to impress upon this Court that overt acts of each of the appellants were different than that of the other co-delinquents. Surprisingly, the detailed overt acts and how the case of these appellants is different from co-delinquents, who have been inflicted with lesser punishment, is not reflected in the chargesheet. 9. The issue as to whether different punishments can be inflicted on the same charge has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank versus Rajendra Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372. In paragraph 17 of the said judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 17. If there is a complete parity in the two sets of cases, imposing different penalties would not be appropriate as inflicting of any/higher penalty in one case would be discriminatory and would amount to infraction of the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. That is the ratio of Rajendra Yadav case, already taken note above. On the other hand, if there is some difference, different penalty can be meted out and what should be the quantum is to be left to the appellate authority. However, such a penalty should be commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and cannot be shockingly disproportionate. As per the ratio of Obettee (P) Ltd. case even if the nature of misconduct committed by the two sets of employees is same, the conduct of one set of employees accepting the guilt and pleading for lenient view would justify lesser punishment to them than the other employees who remained adopted the mode of denial, with the result that charges stood proved ultimately in a full-fledged enquiry conducted 8 against them. In that event, higher penalty can be imposed upon such delinquent employees. It would follow that choosing to take a chance to contest the charges such employees thereafter cannot fall back and say that the penalty in their cases cannot be more than the penalty which is imposed upon those employees who tendering accepted unconditional apology. the charges at the outset by 10. The doctrine of equality has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. At paragraph 19.4 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in a case when punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charge, appropriate course would be to remit the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority / Competent Authority. Further in paragraph 19.5 of the said judgment, exception has been carved out and it has been held that there has to be complete parity between two sets of delinquents, who are equally placed in respect of punishment if the charges are same. It is necessary to quote paragraphs 19.4 and 19.5 of the aforesaid judgment, which read as under:- 19.4 Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case. 19.5 The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co- delinquent the is awarded disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge- sheet in the two cases. If the co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable. lesser punishment by 11. Thus, from the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that if the charges are same and the persons who have been inflicted with lesser punishment were co-delinquents, this principle can be applied. 12. In the cases in hand, admittedly, these appellants are co- delinquents with the persons, who have been charged, arising out the same Departmental Proceeding. Charge is of cowardice, inaction and non-reacting to the indiscriminate firing. Nature of allegation and charge against all these delinquent employees are same with that of the other co-delinquents, who have been inflicted with lesser punishment. This fact has not been taken note of by the authorities. Thus, we are inclined to allow these appeals in view of 9 the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (supra). The impugned order dated 20.10.2020 passed by learned Single Judge, the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the Revisional Authority and the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to consider on the quantum of punishment awarded to these appellants, considering what has been held above and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (supra) to take an appropriate decision and pass a fresh order on quantum of punishment of these appellants. All these Letters Patent Appeals are, accordingly, allowed. (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.) Kumar/Cp-02 (Ananda Sen, J.)