1.A). Smt. Niraj Tomar, aged about 42 years, wife of late Naresh Tomar; 1.B) v. 1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs North Block at New
Case Details
2025:JHHC:33484 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 6765 of 2018 --------- 1.A). Smt. Niraj Tomar, aged about 42 years, wife of late Naresh Tomar; 1.B). Shri Om Tomar, aged about 16 years, son of late Naresh Tomar 1.C). Shri Shyam Tomar, aged about 15 years, son of late Naresh Tomar 1.D). Smt. Vimla, aged about 68 years, W/o Surendra; All petitioners are residents of Village Nizampur, P.O. & P.S. Hapur, District Hapur, Uttar Pradesh ....Petitioners Versus 1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs North Block at New Delhi-110001, P.O.-Connaught Place-50 P.S.-Connaught Place, District-New Delhi. 2. D.G.P., C.R.P.F., block No.1, C.G.O. Complex Procurement Cell Provisioning, Directorate, Lodhi Road, P.O. & P.S. Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. 3. Inspector General, Northern Sector, C.R.P.F. West Part, block No.3 Wing 2, R.K. Puram, P.O. & P.S.-R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066. 4. D.I.G., C.R.P.F., Gurgaon, Group Centre, Kadarpur, P.O.- Badhshahpur, District-Gurgaon P.S.-Badhshahpur, (Haryana)-122001. 5. Commandant 134 Battalion, C.R.P.F., G.L.A. College, P.O.-G.L.A. District-Palamu (Jharkhand) PIN No.-822101. P.S.-Daltonganj, ....Respondents College, --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Pradyuman Poddar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI Mr. Mehul Raj, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, CGC Mr. Shashank Kumar, A.C. to CGC, --------- C.A.V. ON: 17.09.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 07/11/2025 1. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsels for the parties. The instant writ application has been preferred by the original-petitioner, namely, Naresh Tomar for the 1 2025:JHHC:33484 following reliefs; (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 12-03-2010 (Ann-3) passed by commandant 134 Battalion, C.R.P.F., G.L.A. College Daltonganj, Jharkhand (Respondent No. 5) whereby and whereunder Major penalty of dismissal from service was passed against the petitioner and order dated 10-09-2010(Ann-4) passed by D.I.G., C.R.P.F. Gurgaon who has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against his dismissed order dated 12-03-2010, and further to set aside order dated 05-04-2011(Annexure 5) passed by Inspector General, Northern Sector, R.K. Puram, New Delhi whereby and whereunder revision application of the petitioner was rejected and further be pleased to set aside the order dated 31-10-2011 (Ann-7) passed by respondent no. 2, who has also dismissed the application filed by the petitioner in a cryptic order. (ii) For a further direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the some post of constable with all consequential benefits. (iii) For any other appropriate writ/order/direction that your lordships may deem fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 3. During pendency of this writ application, the original- Petitioner, namely, Naresh Tomar had died, and the present Petitioners, being his legal heirs, have been substituted pursuant to order of this Court. 4. The brief facts of the case as it appears from the writ application are that the original petitioner (now deceased) was enrolled in C.R.P.F. as constable/GD on 24.03.2003 and on 06.08.2009 he was given a show cause notice on the charge of misconduct for which the petitioner submitted his reply. The reply of the delinquent employee was not accepted and therefore charges were framed and departmental enquiry was 2 2025:JHHC:33484 initiated in which several witnesses were examined. Thereafter, on the request of the original-Petitioner the Inquiry officer was changed who was directed to continue the enquiry from the same stage where it was left. However, the new Inquiry officer contended before the commandant that the former Inquiry officer has lost the file of the inquiry and consequently, he was directed to initiate the enquiry afresh. It is alleged by the Ld. Counsel for the delinquent employee that in the subsequent proceedings, all the witnesses gave contradictory statements under the influence of the company commander and relying upon them the Inquiry officer submitted adverse report. Thereafter, on 11.3.2010 the disciplinary authority gave 15 days’ time to the delinquent employee to oppose the charges framed against him; however, on 12.3.2010, he was terminated from the service. The original-petitioner appealed against the said order which was rejected and again he preferred revision which was also dismissed. 5. Learned Counsel for the original-Petitioner had submitted that during the first enquiry; the witnesses gave statements favourable to the delinquent employee but the same was alleged to be misplaced and therefore they were 3 2025:JHHC:33484 examined again and they gave contradictory statements; as such, their statements cannot be relied upon. 6. Learned counsel has further assailed the termination order on the ground that that the charge no.1 with which the delinquent employee was charged is vague as it fails to specify when and in what manner, the delinquent employee disobeyed the order of superior officers and argued with them or how he was careless on his duty. He had also submitted that the said charge was general in nature and in absence of specific charge; the original-petitioner could not defend the allegations properly. 7. In regard to charge no. 2, he had submitted that the delinquent employee was not intentionally absent from duty; rather he was absent because his wife was admitted in hospital and only for this reason, he sent a leave application by registered post on 20.05.2009 addressing to the company commandment. 8. Learned ASGI on behalf of the Respondent authorities submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable as High Court cannot act as an appellate authority in the matters of disciplinary proceeding. He further submitted that when the delinquent employee was posted at Bhandariya, which is the highly sensitive Naxal affected area, he did not report timely 4 2025:JHHC:33484 on duty, sat down on empty ammunition box, and removed his belt and cap during his duty and used unparliamentary language with seniors. 9. Learned Counsel further submitted that the dismissal order does not require any interference, inasmuch as, when opportunity to defend his case was provided to the delinquent employee, he did not submit any defence and vide application dated 26.12.2009 he submitted that the departmental inquiry may be finalized at the earliest. He finally submitted that looking to the negligence and indiscipline of the original-petitioner; the order of termination was proportionate and to buttress his argument learned ASGI relied upon Union of India v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat1. 10. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits; it appears that the main grievance of the original- petitioner/ delinquent employee is that the order of termination is perverse as charge no. 1 was vague and his explanation/reply for charge no. 2 was not considered. For brevity the charges are quoted herein below; मद-1 यह (cid:873)क बल सं(cid:201)या 031538734 (cid:871)सपाह(cid:547) / जी०डी० नरेश कुमार तौमर, ए/134 बटा(cid:871)लयन के०(cid:464)र०पु०बल ने (cid:871)सं०/ जीडी के पद पर काय(cid:91)रत रहते हुए के(cid:219)(cid:289)(cid:547)य (cid:464)रजव(cid:91) पु(cid:871)लस बल अ(cid:876)ध(cid:467)नयम 1949 क(cid:551) धारा 11 (1) के अधीन बल के सद(cid:232)य होने क(cid:551) है(cid:871)सयत से 1(2005) 13 SCC 228 5 2025:JHHC:33484 अवचार (Misconduct), कदाचार व अनुशासनह(cid:547)नता का अपराध (cid:873)कया है, िजसके तहत बल सं(cid:201)या 031538734 (cid:871)सपाह(cid:547)/जी०डी० नरेश कुमार तौमर ने (cid:871)स(cid:467)नयर एन०सी०ओ०, अ(cid:876)धन(cid:232)थ अ(cid:876)धका(cid:464)रय(cid:585) व क(cid:224)पनी कमा(cid:214)डर के आदेश(cid:585) क(cid:551) अवहेलना करने, उनसे बहसवाजी करने तथा सौपी गई (cid:620)यूट(cid:547) के (cid:292)(cid:467)त लापरवाह(cid:547) करने का अपराध (cid:873)कया है जो (cid:873)क बल के आदेश(cid:585) एवं अनुशासन के (cid:874)व(cid:510)(cid:622)ध है तथा द(cid:214)डनीय अपराध है। मद-दो यह (cid:873)क बल सं(cid:201)या 031538734 (cid:871)सपाह(cid:547)/जी०डी० नरेश कुमार तौमर, ए/134 बटा(cid:871)लयन के(cid:464)रपु बल म(cid:581) (cid:871)स० / जीडी के पद पर काय(cid:91)रत रहते हुए के(cid:219)(cid:289)(cid:547)य (cid:464)रजव(cid:91) पु(cid:871)लस बल अ(cid:876)ध(cid:467)नयम 1949 क(cid:551) धारा 11 (1) के अधीन बल के सद(cid:232)य होने क(cid:551) है(cid:871)सयत से अवचार (Misconduct), कदाचार व अनुशासनह(cid:547)नता का अपराध (cid:873)कया है, िजसम(cid:581) बल सं(cid:201)या 031538734 (cid:871)सपाह(cid:547)/जी०डी० नरेश कुमार तौमर (cid:465)दनांक 25/12/2008 से 28/12/2008 तक 04 (cid:465)दन तथा (cid:465)दनांक 7/5/2009 से 6/7/2009 तक 61 (cid:465)दन (cid:466)बना (cid:873)कसी स(cid:162)म आधकार(cid:547) क(cid:551) अनुम(cid:467)त के डयूट(cid:547) से भगौडा रहा । अतः बल सं(cid:201)या 031538734 (cid:871)सपाह(cid:547)/जी०डी० नरेश कुमार तौमर ने अवचार, कदाचार व अनुशासनह(cid:547)नता का अपराध (cid:873)कया है जो (cid:873)क बल के आदेश(cid:585) एवं अनुशासन के (cid:874)व(cid:510)(cid:622)ध है तथा द(cid:214)डनीय अपराध है। 11. After going through the charge no. 1, it appears that the charge contains several allegations i.e. non- compliance with the directions of senior officials, argumentative, negligent in performing duties. However, not a single/specific incident has been pointed out in the charge framed as to when the petitioner was not complying with the directions of senior officials or he was argumentative or negligent in performing his duties. This Court is having no hesitation in holding that the Charge No.1 is vague in nature as opposed to be specific and definite. 12. The law is well settled that even in a domestic enquiry, the charges must be clear, definite and specific as it would be difficult for any delinquent to meet the vague charges. Evidence adduced should not be obligatory even if 6 2025:JHHC:33484 the delinquent does not take the defence or make a protest that the charges are vague; that does not save the enquiry from being vitiated for the reason that there must be fair play in action, particularly, in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao reported2 and also the decision rendered in Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan3. 13. In yet another judgment in the case of Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank4 the Hon'ble Apex Court relying upon its earlier judgments held at para 13 and 14 as under: “13. As has been held by this Court in Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of W.B.: “5. … The grounds on which it is proposed to take actionhave to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance which is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has also to be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is one of the basic contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him.” 14. This position of law has been reiterated in the recent case of Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar and in para 35 of the judgment as reported in SCC, this Court has observed that the law can be summarised that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice and the charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges.”