Angrez Singh & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.

Petitioner after he had rendered 23 years of service was called upon to show cause as to why his services be not brought to an end. He has

been removed from service. The reason for this was that he had made a wrong declaration as to his date of birth. Two article of charges which

formed the bases are part and parcel of AnnexureB. For facility of reference this is being reproduced below:

Articlel

That the said No. 710350902 NK. Angrez Singh while functioning as a member of the Force u/s 11(1) of CRPF Act 1949 in that he had declared

his date of birth false stating as 09.10.1952 instead of 09.10.1954 at the time of his recruitment on 01.07.1971 as a constable in CRPF. Thereby

he committed an offence of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force.

Article II

He was enlisted in CRPF w.e.f. 01.07.1971. His actual date of birth is 09.10.1954. Since he was under age at the time of his enlistment in CRPF

he changed his D.O.B. in school leaving certificate as 09.10.1952 from 09.10.1954 by tempering to became eligible and enlistment in CRPF. Thus

he committed an offence of misconduct in discharge of his duties as a member of the force.

A perusal of the above would indicate that the mere allegation against the petitioner was that his date of birth was 09.10.1954 and he was

wrongly declared it as 09.10.1952. It is further stated that he has tampered with the school leaving certificate. It is accordingly submitted that this

act of his, which enabled him to join the service was covered by section 11 (1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act. As indicated above he

was called upon to show cause and after holding enquiry, the resultant order removing the petitioner from service came to be passed.

Two charges against the petitioner were that he has declared his date of birth falsely and secondly, that he had tampered with the school leaving

certificate, visavis these matters when enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer, he was pointedly asked as to what his age was at the time he

sought enrolment. His reply was that at that time he was studying in 9th class. It was on that basis his physical measurement were taken as to what

his exact date of birth is, petitioner was unable to reply. He was unable to tell the exact date of birth. Another question put to him was to the effect

that in the certificate furnished by him the date of birth has been erased and it has been shown as 09.10.1952 instead of 09,10.1954 Thereply

given by the petitioner was in the CRPF Form No. 1 he had indicated that he has passed 9th class. As to who produced the certificate and as to

who caused the eraser as per the petitioner was not in his knowledge. He took a categorical stand that he had never furnished this certificate.

To another question put to him he has categorically stated that the certificate given by him was a clear certificate and no cutting or overwriting or

erasing was done by him.

Notwithstanding the stand taken by the petitioner, the enquiry office came to the conclusion that the petitioner had changed the date form

09.10.1954 to 08.10.1952.

It is not in dispute that this certificate was furnished by the petitioner at the time of his joining. It was at this point of time, the respondents were

supposed to examine this certificate. Even if it is presumed that the petitioner did make any eraser, this was before he joined the service. The

questions arises;

i. as to whether an act of omission of a person prior to his joining the force can be taken note of while imposing punishment under Section 11 of the

Central Re serve Police Force Act of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the act); ii. Whether order of removal can be passed under Section 11(1) of

the Act;

On both the issues, view expressed on judicial side is against the respondents.

So far as first question is concerned. In the case reported as Dheeraj Singh vs. Union of India, 2000 KLJ 612, it has been ob served, ""Section

11 of the CRPF Act makes only those acts punish able under it which are committed as member of the force only.

So far as second aspect of the matter is concerned, this has been considered by the Gauhati High Court in case reported as Deep Chand vs.

Union of India 2001(4) SCT 965. H.K. Sema J. (Now Chief Justice of this Court) has ex pressed the view that under Section 11(1), only minor

punishment can be imposed.

What has been observed in paras 7 and 8 of the judgement is being reproduced below :

Section 11 (1) of the Act deals with the punishment and empowers the Commandant or any other prescribed authority to impose punishment for

misconduct upon the members of the force with the following punishment;

a. Reduction in rank;

b. Fine or any amount not exceeding one months pay and allowances;

c. Confinement to quarters, lines or camp for a term not exceeding one month ?

d. Confinement in the quarter guard for not more than twenty eight days, with or without punishment drill or extraguard, fatigue or other duty, and

e. Removal from any office or distinction or special emolument in the force.

In the present case, admittedly the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner has been made under the procedure

prescribed under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, which is a major punishment. Rule 27 of CRPF Rules only prescribed procedure for award

of major punishment. It is not a penal provision itself. This apart, the petitioner has been chargesheeted under the provisions of Section 11 (1) of

the Act, the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him under that section, he was allowed to defend him self by crossexamining the prosecution

witnesses under that section and, there fore, the Disciplinary Authority is not permitted to convery a charge under Section 11(1) which is minor

penalty to that a major penalty for the completion of the enquiry. This amounted to denial of reason able opportunities to defend himself and is hit

by Article 311 of the Constitution.

The aforemention reasoning would be squarely attracted to the facts of this case. Order of removal could not be passed. Thus looking from

any point of view the order of removal passed in this case cannot be sustained. The same is quashed. The petitioner is held entitled to reinstatement

with all consequential benefits minus monetary benefits.

Disposed of as such.