AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. R. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondents are represented by the learned Central Govt. Counsel
(CGC), Mr. M.R. Adhikari.
The petitioner is a former Constable (GD) of the 54th Battalion of the CRPF. He challenges the order dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure-III), whereby,
his removal from service was ordered, under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ''the CRPF
Act''), read with Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ''the CRPF Rules''), in pursuant to a
Disciplinary Proceeding (DP).
While posted for sentry duty on 19.8.2006, the CRPF constable was deployed at Post No.5 and at around 20:20 Hrs., he fired 4 rounds of
shots from his 5.56 MM Insus Riffle. This led to the charge memo dated 22.6.2008, whereby the delinquent in substance was informed that an
inquiry under the CRPF Rules is proposed to be held against him. In the charge memo, it was alleged that he intentionally fired 4 rounds of shots
from his Riffle, thereby causing injury not only to himself but also endangered others and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 11(1)
of the CRPF Act. As such the respondent authorities, contemplated holding of an inquiry under the CRPF Rules.
The petitioner participated in the inquiry where 10 witnesses were presented by the prosecution. The witness Nos.2-9, however unequivocally
testified that on the fateful day, there was heavy rainfall and the entire camp area, including the Post No.5, was muddy due to incessant rain. The
witnesses present in the vicinity heard a thumping sound as if someone has fallen and immediately thereafter they heard the gun shots being fired. In
the perception of the colleagues as testified, the petitioner was an even tempered person and enjoyed co-ordial relationship with his family
members and his colleagues in the Battalion.
The PW.1 was the Assistant Commander of the Battalion and he also mentioned that the camp had become muddy on account of heavy rain.
After hearing the gun fire, he rushed to the site and arranged for shifting of the wounded petitioner for emergency treatment at the Sub-Divisional
Health Center, Pampore, where from, the injured was shifted and operated at the Sauna Hospital.
Hav. Armourer Ranvir Singh was the PW.10 and his evidence touched on the operational mechanism of the 5.56 MM Insus Riffle. Since the
trigger of the rifle has to be pushed twice to release four shots from the riffle, the PW.10 stated that the firing cannot be accidental but must be
intentional.
On consideration of the above evidence, the charge of intentional firing of the service riffle, to cause self injury was found to be established. The
delinquent was thus found guilty of offence punishable under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act.
The conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority under the impugned order dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure-
III). But he went beyond the charge memo and noted that the constable tried to commit suicide with his weapon. The punishment of removal from
service was accordingly ordered against the delinquent.
1. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. R. Sarma, reads the evidence of the witnesses to project that none of them had testified about any
suicide attempt by the constable and it was not even a charge in the D.P. Yet the constable was punished on the ground of intentional firing of his
service rifle to commit suicide. This is contended to be a perverse conclusion.
9.2. The learned counsel refers to the balance temperament of the delinquent and also his co-ordial relation with his family members and colleagues
and on this basis, the counsel argues that the suicide theory is improbable and not based on evidence.
9.3. The petitioner submits that the firing incident was also enquired by the police and they had clearly concluded that it is not a case of intentional
firing. Mr. Sarma accordingly argues that the conclusion on intentional firing (not of accidental firing), is based on no evidence.
9.4. Referring to the rain soaked muddy camp sites, as was testified by all witnesses and the thumping sound of a body falling, followed by gun
firing is projected by the petitioner''s lawyer to make out a case of accidental firing and on that basis, the bonafide of the conclusion on intentional
firing, is questioned by the learned counsel, Mr. R. Sarma.
1. On the other hand, Mr. M.R. Adhikari, the learned CGC, reads the evidence of PW.10, to project that in case of an accidental fall, single
pulling of the trigger is reasonable but since four rounds were fired which requires repeat pulling of trigger, the case of deliberate firing, is projected
by the CGC.
10.2. The CGC refers to the mechanism of the 5.56 MM Insus Riffle, to project that there is a remote possibility of accidental firing for discharging
four rounds that weapon and Mr. Adhikari tries to make out a case of intentional suicidal firing, by the delinquent constable.
When a Disciplinary Proceeding is drawn up, it is important to frame all relevant charge(s), so that the delinquent can be made aware of his
lapses. When a particular charge is not framed but punishment is imposed on that charge, it becomes a case of denial of a fair opportunity and also
cause the miscarriage of justice, to the delinquent (see An Advocate vs. Bar Council of India), reported in 1989 Supp (2) SCC 25.
As can be seen from the case records, only the following two charges were leveled against the delinquent:-
Charge-I : That C/GD Bichitra Sharma had, on 19.08.2009, fired four rounds of shots from his official 5.56 mm Insus riffle (BT No.270/Body
No.16546445), thereby violating the provisions of Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949.
Charge-II : That by firing four shots from his official riffle, C/GD Bichitra Sharma also showed gross negligence to his duty, thereby causing injury
to self and also posing grave threats to his colleagues posted at Pampore Police Station.
The above extract clearly reveals that the delinquent was never charged with suicide attempt. In fact, when four rounds of ammunitions is fired
by a trained man from an Insus Riffle, it is much more likely that the suicide attempt will be fatal. Hence, the non-fatal wounds points towards
accidental firing rather than a suicide attempt. If we examine the facts here from this perspective, the impugned penalization based upon the
unstated charge of suicide, can hardly be sustained.
The evidence of the nine prosecution witnesses clearly reflects the sequences of events and the muddy camp area. The possibility of slipping
and accidental firing is clearly suggested by the witnesses who were present in the vicinity of the incident. They heard the thumping sound
(indicating a man filling) and the firing in the immediate aftermath. Disregarding these evidence and to conclude it to be a case of deliberate suicidal
firing, is nothing but a perverse conclusion, which is not based on the evidence on record. In fact, on proper appreciation of the evidence, no
reasonable man would reach the impugned conclusion. Therefore, this appears to be a clear case of violation of the Wednesbury Principle, as was
discussed by Lord Greene, in the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. vs. Wednesbury Corporation, (1948) 1 KB 223, which was
cited with approval by our Supreme Court, in Chariman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank vs. P.C. Kakkar, reported in (2003) 4
SCC 364.
When the evidence in the case does not support the charge of deliberate firing, the accidental firing may entail any of lesser punishments,
specified in Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act. In my considered opinion, the penalty of removal from service for the act of accidental firing is clearly
disproportionate to the misconduct.
Following the above discussion, the impugned office order dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure-III), is found to be unmerited, as the same is based
upon the unstated charge of suicide attempt. The evidence on the contrary suggests that the firing of the weapon was accidental, rather than a
deliberate act. Therefore, the disciplinary authorities cannot treat this matter as a case of major misconduct. For the accidental lapse, any of the
other minor punishment (barring removal from service), as specified in Section 11 of the CRPF Act, can be reasonably imposed. Thus the
punishment order dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure-III) is set aside and quashed and subject to medical fitness, the constable is ordered to be reinstated
in service. The authorities are at liberty to impose any lesser minor punishment for the lapses, committed by the delinquent. It is ordered
accordingly.
With the above order, the case stands allowed. No cost.