Sunil Kumar Singh ……… v. 1.Union of India 2.Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Ranchi, Range, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand 3.Dy. Inspector
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 5667 of 2014 ---------- Sunil Kumar Singh ………… Petitioner Versus 1.Union of India 2.Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Ranchi, Range, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand 3.Dy. Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Ranchi Range, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand 4.Commandant, 94-Battalion, CRPF, Khunti (Jharkhand), Dist.-Khunti, Jharkhand ………… Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Mohammad Asghar, Advocate Mr. Diwaker Upadhyay, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, Advocate ---------- 11/ 25.04.2024 Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the appellant order dated 14.03.2014 (Annexure-11) passed by I.G. CRPF, Jharkhand Sector Ranchi, by which at one hand has dismissed the Departmental Appeal and on another hand holding the order of revised/enhanced order passed by DIG as not proper and legal, modified the same without any change in substance. Further prayer has been made for quashment of order dated 05.11.2013 by which the earlier punishment order was suo-moto enhanced by the DIG, CRPF. Further prayer has been made to quash the original punishment order dated 02.08.2013 (Annexure-8) passed by the disciplinary authority. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing the punishment order dated 02.08.2013 (Annexure-8). 4. Petitioner was posted and working as Constable/G.D in B/94 Battalion CRPF at Khunti (Jharkhand) and discharging his duties diligently and with the satisfaction of the respondent-authorities. One fine morning office order No.P-VIII-4/2013-94-EC-II dated 28.03.2013 was issued under the signature of Commandant, putting the petitioner under suspension with immediate 1 effect in contemplation of department proceeding. Thereafter vide memo No.P-VIII-4/2013-94-ES-II dated 13.04.2013 the departmental proceeding was initiated under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules 1949 by serving the memo of charge. Subsequently vide order dated 07.05.2013, one Sri Ranjit Mondal, Asst. Commandant was appointed as an Inquiry Officer whereas one Subedar Major/G.D Ajay Sing was appointed as Presenting Officer with direction to the petitioner to file his statement of defence. Petitioner consequently upon being noticed, appeared before the Inquiry Officer on 23.05.2013 and denied the charges levelled against him. Thereafter Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry by examining the witnesses, as named in Enclosure-4 of Letter dated 13.04.2013, but the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of cross- examining the witnesses. After conducting enquiry Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report holding the charges levelled against the petitioner partially proved. Thereafter disciplinary authority i.e. Commandant inflicted two fold punishments vide order dated 02.08.2013 as (i) Line imprisonment of 10 days and pack drill of one hour everyday. (ii) The period of suspension from 28.03.2013 to 01.08.2013 i.e. 127 days shall be regularized. Thereafter, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Ranchi Range suo motto reviewed the order of punishment and enhanced the same vide order dated 05.11.2013, whereby after the order of punishment passed by Commandant being fully executed, he inflicted two fold punishment i.e. (i) stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect for two years (ii) the period of suspension from 28.03.2013 to 01.08.2013 i.e. 127 days shall be regularized. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has knocked the door of this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner assail the impugned orders on two grounds; (i) whether the appellate authority i.e. DIG was empowered to enhanced the punishment after petitioner has undergone the punishment. (ii) whether the punishment order already undergone can be enhanced subsequently. Learned counsel refers to Rule 29 (d) of the CRPF Rules, 1955 which is quoted hereunder:- 29(d) The Director-General or [Special Director-General or the Additional Director-General heading the Zone] or the 2 Inspector- General or the Deputy Inspector-General may call for the records of award of any punishment and confirm, enhance, modify or annul the same, or make or direct further investigation to be made before passing such order; Learned counsel further submits that there is no quarrel to the said propositions of law which empowers the DIG to enhance or modify the punishment but that has to be exercised fairly. In the instant case it has been argued that though DIG had the power but the same cannot be exercised once the petitioner has already undergone the punishment. Learned counsel submits that thereafter revision was preferred and revisional authority did not consider the same neither appreciated the contention of the petitioner raised in appeal/revision and on this score itself the impugned orders are fit to be quashed and set aside and petitioner be given all the consequential benefits. 6. Contrary to that learned counsel for the Union of India submits that (i) it is not a case of double jeopardy (ii) punishment was inflicted in the same departmental proceeding and as such DIG was fully empowered to enhance
Decision
the punishment and as such the impugned order is fully justified and there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order. 7. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, across the bar, this Court is of the considered view that as per Rule 29 (d) of the CRPF Rules, 1955 there is clear cut stipulation of powers of the appellate authority as well as revisional authority pertaining to disciplinary proceeding. Admittedly there is no quarrel regarding the powers of the appellate or the revisional authority. The power is exercised in the similar fashion as that of I.G or D.I.G. as given in the police manual and I.G. or D.I.G has power to suo-moto call for the records and enhance the punishment if it is found that earlier punishment was not in consonance with the charges and was disproportionate but the same has to be done following the cardinal principle of natural justice. In the instant case the DIG has enhanced the punishment after the punishment had already been undergone by the petitioner, which is impermissible in the eyes of law. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was never considered by the appellate authority or the revisional 3 authority rather revisional authority has in most mechanical manner affirmed the order of appellate authority. When legal issues are raised by an employee, i.e. petitioner in the instant case, the same has to be dealt with properly. Sufficient reasons have to be assigned as to why the contention raised by the employee is not correct and proper and is not in accordance with law. Nothing has been brought on record to show that sufficient reasons were assigned for not interfering in the order of appellant authority. The same issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of L.T. Governor, Delhi & Ors. Vs. HC Narinder Singh reported in (2004) 13 SCC 342 at para-4 of which reads as under;- 4. Reading of the show-cause notice suggests as if it is in continuation of the departmental proceedings. Lack of devotion to duty is mentioned as the reason for the proposed action which was the subject- matter of the earlier proceedings as well. The second proposed action based on the same cause of action proposing to deny promotion or reversion is contemplated under the impugned show-cause notice. Second penalty based on the same cause of action would amount to double jeopardy. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in law in annulling such an action. We are not expressing any opinion on the ambit or scope of any rule. 8. In view of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement the impugned order dated 05.11.2013 at (Annexure-9) and Appellate order dated 14.03.2014 (Annexure-11) are hereby quashed and set aside. 9. Petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits. 10. Accordingly the instant writ petition stands allowed. Rohit/- (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 4