G.G.C. Son vs Union Of India

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the impugned orders of the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority and to direct the respondents to allow him to retire voluntarily by modifying the impugned order of compulsory retirement from service.

Brief facts, as could be seen from the averments set out in the writ petition, are as follows:

The petitioner joined Central Reserve Police Force during 1983 and was posted at 86 Bn, since 28.8.2003. On 30.9.2014 night while he was on duty, the petitioner consumed liquor and threw out the steel cot of Ct/Cobbler L.Gyanendra from the training area guard room stating that no Charpai of cobbler should be placed near his Charpai and was shouting by using filthy language. On hearing the incident, the higher officials came to the spot and tried to convince him, but the petitioner was shouting on the senior officials too. The petitioner was medically examined and found that he had consumed liquor.

2.1. Similarly, on 1.10.2014 night, the petitioner consumed liquor during morcha duty and he came to the residence of the senior officers where he threatened to kill them and duly cocked his service Arms and also threatened that he will kidnap the child of the officer by saying that he is a member of NSCN and he did not fear anybody. Again medical examination was conducted and the petitioner was found to have consumed liquor during duty.

2.2. Since the petitioner while on active duty consumed liquor, displayed unruly and indiscipline behaviour by shouting and using filthy languages, misbehaved with his fellow colleague/senior officials and threatened to kill his senior officers and threatened to kidnap the child of an officer and also disclosed his involvement with NSCN which are serious offence of misconduct and punishable under the conduct rule, the petitioner was issued a charge memo.

2.3. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who had submitted his report to the disciplinary authority in which both the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. The disciplinary authority having gone through the entire proceedings has given a show cause to the petitioner as to why major punishment should not be imposed on him, but the petitioner did not submit any written submission. Accordingly, after due application of mind and keeping in view the natural justice, the disciplinary authority had passed the impugned order of compulsory retirement from service dated 24.1.2015.

2.4. Aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner had preferred an appeal to the fourth respondent. By the order dated 20.03.2015, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred a revision before the third respondent and by an order dated 4.9.2015, the revision was dismissed. Challenging all three orders, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

Resisting the petition, the respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that keeping in view the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority had imposed punishment of compulsory retirement from service. It is stated that after thorough analysis of the case in the backdrop of appeal preferred by the petitioner and on due application of mind and by virtue of powers vested on him under Rule 28 of CRPF Rules, 1955, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. It is also stated that since the petitioner was a habitual defaulter who turns violent after consuming liquor and as everyone in the force is in possession of personal weapon, allowing of such personnel to continue in the force is dangerous, rejected the revision.

According to the respondents, though the petitioner committed grave offence, taking into consideration his length of service, a lenient view was taken and after application of mind, the petitioner was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement from service, which is very much commensurate to the gravity of the offence committed by him. Stating that the petitioner was trying to waste the precious time of the Court, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

Assailing the impugned orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the departmental enquiry, the fifth respondent instructed the petitioner to opt for voluntary retirement and on the instruction of the fifth respondent, he had submitted a representation to the concerned authority requesting to allow him to retire voluntarily and accordingly, the authority concerned had initiated process for allowing the petitioner to retire voluntarily. He would submit that the petitioner was forced to undergo medical examination against his will by the authorities and the report of the medical examination was used against him in passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement from service.

The learned counsel further submitted that the appellate authority and the revisional authority have also without due application of mind rejected the appeal/revision and the same are liable to be set aside.

The learned counsel next submitted that with regard to charge of pointing the weapon issued to the petitioner to P.Dangmei and L.R.Pudaite threatening to kill them and also threatened to kidnap the child of one Kumar Rakesh Ranjan are baseless and false. Arguing so, the learned counsel submitted that it is not clear as to why the respondents have failed to lodge any complaint against the petitioner to the police station for initiating criminal prosecution for the alleged offences of threaten and kidnap. He would submit that the charges alleged against the petitioner are mere allegations made with an ulterior motive and intention of prejudicially punishing him, which is illegal and arbitrary.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the charge of misconduct and misbehaviour with his senior officers under the influence of liquor was only on the basis of the medical examination conducted against him without his consent. In fact, the medical examination was conducted under duress, which is illegal and arbitrary. In support, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager (P), Punjab & Sind Bank and others v. Daya Singh, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 233.

Per contra, the learned Government counsel contended that the petitioner had committed a grave misconduct which cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force. He would submit that the petitioner is habitual in committing various types of indiscipline activities and therefore, departmental enquiry was conducted as per the procedure and rules. According to the learned counsel, the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved beyond any doubt and in fact, the petitioner pleaded guilty during enquiry.

The learned Government counsel further contended that the punishment of compulsory retirement from service was awarded after taking a lenient view and after application of mind which is very much commensurate to the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that departmental enquiry was conducted as per the law laid down in the procedure and rules and thus, there is no violation of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner.

The learned Government counsel next submitted that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner at each and every stage of the departmental enquiry to defend himself. Charges framed against the petitioner were fully proved beyond any doubt. Accordingly, after going through the pros and cons of the case and after application of judicious mind and keeping in view the length of service of the petitioner, a lenient view was taken by the disciplinary authority and awarded punishment of compulsory retirement from service. He would submit that the appeal and the revision preferred by the petitioner were also considered by the authorities concerned after applying their minds and rejected the same, as nothing on record to interfere with the order of punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority. Since all three authorities have applied their mind in the case of the petitioner while awarding and confirming the punishment imposed on the petitioner, the learned counsel contends that present writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly the same is liable to be dismissed.

It is not in dispute that on 30.09.2014 during duty time under the influence of liquor the petitioner scolded his senior officials which is against the discipline of the force. Similarly, on 01.10.2014 during duty hours, the petitioner left the duty place and point his weapon to P.Dangmei and L.R.Pudiete by going to their place and had threatened to kill them. The petitioner also threatened to kidnap the child of Kumar Rakesh Ranjan and he had also said that he is the member of NSCN, which is against the discipline and faithfulness of the force being the members of the force.

It is also not in dispute that notice was served on the petitioner to show cause within ten days for the charges levelled against him. Since no response from the petitioner, one Krishna Salam was appointed as an Enquiry Officer on 16.10.2014. After notice when the petitioner appeared, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and during enquiry, he had admitted the allegation of scolding his senior officials under the influence of liquor and denied the allegation of threatening and kidnapping levelled against him.

In the present case, there is no dispute that departmental enquiry was conducted and the same was concluded after due participation of the petitioner, however, the petitioner has not produced any witness/exhibits in his defence in spite of giving sufficient opportunity. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority stating that the charges levelled against him are proved. After the receipt of the Enquiry Report and before taking a decision on the report, of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority sent a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner giving him time to submit his written statement. Since the petitioner did not submit any written statement, the disciplinary authority after due application of mind and keeping in view the natural justice had passed the impugned order dated 24.01.2015 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement from service.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the departmental enquiry, the fifth respondent instructed the petitioner to opt for voluntary retirement and on the instruction of the fifth respondent, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the concerned authority requesting to allow him to retire voluntarily and that the authorities concerned also initiated process for allowing him to retire voluntarily. Though the petitioner enclosed copy of the application along with the petition, nothing on record to show that at the instance of the fifth respondent, he has submitted the application. In view of the above, this Court finds that there is no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his application for voluntary retirement was processed by the authorities.

The case of the petitioner is that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are not true and the same were levelled on the behest of the senior officer for personal whimsical reasons raked with malafide prejudiced and vengeance. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has not committed any nuisance during duty period on 30.09.2014 and 01.10.2014 as alleged by the department.

On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that medical examination was carried out by Dr. Florence Dangmei, Chief Medical Officer, 86 Bn CRPF, in which it was confirmed that the petitioner had consumed liquor on both consecutive days while he was on duty.

In the instant case, the records reveal that the petitioner while on duty had consumed liquor, displayed unruly and indiscipline behaviour by shouting and using filthy languages, misbehaved with his fellow colleague/senior officials, threatened to kill his senior officials anti had also threatened to kidnap the child of an officer. The records further reveal that disciplinary proceedings were drawn as per the rules and the procedure and sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself during the course of departmental enquiry. Though the proved charges deserve more severe punishment, keeping in view the length of service and other aspects, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of compulsory retirement from service with effect from 24.1.2015.

As against the award of punishment of compulsory retirement from service, the petitioner preferred appeal by raising the following grounds viz., (i) enquiry was conducted without appointing any Presenting Officer; (ii) no evidence to show that he had consumed liquor on 30.09.2014 and on 01.10.2014 during duty hours; (iii) he has not pointed out weapon against P.Dangmei and L.R.Pudite and not threatened to kill them; and (iv) he has not kidnapped the child of senior official and (v) he has not committed any misconduct and misbehaviour during his duty hours.

On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the appellate authority viz., the Deputy Inspector General of Police, after considering the grounds of appeal, came to the conclusion that nothing on record to intervene in the order passed by the disciplinary authority and more so, the disciplinary authority had taken a lenient view after the charges have been proved during the course of enquiry. Thus, the appellate authority is of the view that the petitioner is a habitual offender and not fit to be retained in the disciplined force like CRPF.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the Inspector General of Police, M & N Sector, CRPF, Langjing, Imphal (Manipur). BY the impugned order dated 04.9.2015, the Inspector General of Police, rejected revision as devoid of merit. The relevant portion of the order reads thus:

"AND WHEREAS, I have gone through the DE proceedings along with all relevant documents and orders of Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority and after careful examination of the submissions of the petitioner in his Revision Petition, the following salient points have emerged:

(i) One two consecutive days on 30/09/2014 & 01/10/2014 while on duty, he committed misconduct and misbehaved with his senior officers under the influence of liquor and

"threatened to kill them and also threatened to kidnap child of an officer stating that he was a member of NSCN which was prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Force and unbecoming of a member of the Force.

(ii) As evident from his records, he has been habitual of committing various types of misconducts for which he has been awarded punishment also on earlier three occasions.

(iii) His work and conduct had not been satisfactory throughout the service.

(iv) During the course of enquiry, the petitioner was given ample opportunities and was also asked by Enquiry Officer whether he desired to engage any Defence Assistant to defend the case which he declined to do and he was even unable to prove his innocence. The charges levelled against the petitioner were proved beyond any doubt during the course of departmental enquiry.

(v)Though he deserved a much stringent punishment, keeping in view his length of service and taking Ienience view by Disciplinary Authority, punishment of "Compulsory retirement from service" was imposed upon him which is totally commensurate to the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner.

NOW THEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing facts, it is clear that he was a habitual defaulter and retaining of such indisciplined persona who turns violent after consuming liquor would not have been in the interest of this disciplined Force. Everyone in the Force is in possession of personal weapon and such persons can be dangerous to be allowed to continue in Force. The petitioner has not brought out any new facts for consideration. I do not f7nd any cogent reasons to interfere with the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Hence, taking into consideration all above aspects, under the provisions of Rule 29 of CRPC Rules 1955, the Revision Petition dated 04/08/2015 submitted by NO. 830290148 Ex CT/GD G.G.C.Son of 86 Bn, CRPF is rejected being devoid of merit."

Placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and others v. Hussain, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 106, the learned counsel for the respondent Government submitted that the disciplinary authority after exercising discretion and keeping in mind the nature and gravity of the charges and also taking note of the length of service, imposed a lenient punishment of compulsory retirement from service and the same warrants no interference to the. High Court, as the petitioner is bound to maintain discipline during duty hours.

In Hussain (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"7. When the charge is proved, as happened in the instant case, it is the disciplinary authority with whom lies the discretion to decide as to what kind (if punishment is to be imposed. Of course, this discretion has to be examined objectively keeping in mind the nature and gravity of the charge. The disciplinary authority is to decide a particular penalty specified in the relevant Rules. A host of factors go into the decision making while exercising such a discretion which include, apart from the nature and gravity of misconduct, past conduct, nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of duties assigned to the delinquent, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in the department or establishment where he works, as well as extenuating circumstances, if any exist. "

In the instant case, the disciplinary authority though is of the view that there should not be any place for the petitioner in the force and the petitioner should be awarded heavy punishment, considering his long service and his family responsibilities, awarded punishment of compulsory retirement from service, which lenient view, it appears, has been taken keeping in view his length of service and other family circumstances. The aforesaid finding arrived at by the disciplinary authority, in my view, appears to be reasonable.

It is well settled that the High Courts, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons thereof. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the Court, cannot be subjected to judiciaI review.

In a catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts held that in the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The jurisdiction of High Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited and cannot be exercised without sufficient reasons. The High Court although has jurisdiction in appropriate case to consider the question in regard to the quantum of punishment, it has a limited role to play.

In Daya Singh (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:

"24. Absence of reasons in a disciplinary order would amount to denial of natural justice to the chargesheeted employee. But the present case was certainly not one of that category. Once the charges were found to have been established, the High Court had no reason to interfere in the decision. Even though there was sufficient documentary evidence on record, the High Court has chosen to hold that the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse. A perverse finding is one which is based on no evidence or one that no reasonable person would arrive at. This has been held by this Court long back in Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE, AIR 1994 SC 1341. Unless it is found that some relevant evidence has not been considered or that certain inadmissible material has sbeen taken into consideration the finding cannot be said to be perverse. The legal position in this behalf has been recently reiterated in Arulvelu v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206. The decision of the High Court cannot therefore be sustained."

In the instant case, there is no material produced by the petitioner to show that natural justice has been violated. In fact, the petitioner took part in the departmental enquiry at every stage and the Enquiry Officer has also conducted the enquiry as per the procedure by affording sufficient opportunity to defend the case right from the beginning keeping in view the natural justice. Therefore, the question of violation of natural justice does not arise in the instant case.

From the orders impugned, this Court finds that all the three authorities are of the firm opinion that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved beyond doubt and continuance of the petitioner in the force is dangerous as he is in the habit of consuming liquor during duty hours and also violent after consuming liquor. As rightly opined by the authorities, continuance of the petitioner, who is a habitual drinker during duty hours, is very dangerous. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that the respondents have also produced the Service Register of the petitioner. On a perusal of the Service Register, this Court finds that the petitioner is in the habit of committing various types of misconducts, for: which he was awarded punishment on earlier occasions. The factum of awarding various punishments as recorded in the Service Register of the petitioner has not been disputed and/or denied by him.

It is apposite to mention that under the Conduct Rules, every Government servant shall at all times maintain absolute discipline and integrity by maintaining devotion to duty and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. It is also to be mentioned that discipline is the backbone of the police force and highest degree of discipline is mandatory for smooth functioning of the force. Being a member of a uniformed force, one is desired and expected to maintain absolute discipline, the foundation on which disciplined and reputed force like CRPF stands.

Coming to the factual aspects of the matter where there are relevant materials which support the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty, it is not the function of the High Court to arrive at an independent finding. If an enquiry has been properly held, the question of adequacy or reliability of evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court.

The settled position of law that it is within the jurisdiction of the competent authority to decide what punishment is to be imposed and the question of punishment is outside the purview of the High Court's interference unless it is so disproportionate to the proved misconduct as to shock the conscience of the Court. It is also settled that reduction of sentence by the High Court would have a demoralising effect and would be a retrograde step. Repentance/unqualified apology at the last appellate stage does not call for any sympathy or mercy.

In the instant case, the petitioner has not raised any ground that the punishment imposed on him is disproportionate. However, he pleaded that during departmental enquiry, the petitioner was instructed to opt for voluntary retirement and accordingly, he has given voluntary retirement application and the same was also processed by the authority concerned. As stated supra, nothing on record to show that the petitioner was compelled to opt for VRS and his application for

VRS was processed. The fact remains that while issuing memo of charges, the petitioner was asked to give in writing if he wants to say anything. The petitioner has not stated anything despite opportunity being given to him. After conducting enquiry, the petitioner was given 15 days time to express if he has anything to say, but he remained silent. Only by enclosing the self made copy of application for VRS, the petitioner is trying to blame the disciplinary authority. There is no material produced by the petitioner to prove that he was instructed to opt for VRS. In the absence of material to support the contention of the petitioner, the question of processing of VRS application does not arise.

In Union of India v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 388, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellant authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. When a member of the disciplined force deviates to such an extent from the discipline and behaves in an untoward manner which is not conceived of, it is difficult to hold that the punishment of dismissal as has been imposed is disproportionate and shocking to the judicial conscience.

In State of Meghalaya and others v. Mecken Singh N.Marak, reported in, (2008) 7 SCC 580, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

"14. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The jurisdiction of the High Court, to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited and cannot be exercised without sufficient reasons. The High Court, although has jurisdiction in appropriate case, to consider the question in regard to the quantum of punishment, but it has a limited role to play. It is now well settled that the High Courts, in exercise of powers under Article 226, do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons therefor. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. In the impugned order of the High Court no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice."

The petitioner being a member of CRPF, high level of discipline is required to be maintained by him. The petitioner has admittedly failed to maintain the discipline and had done grave misconduct and misbehaviour with his senior officials under the influence of liquor and threatened to kiII them and also threatened to kidnap the child of an official stating that he was a member of NSCN, which was prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the force. When there was no sufficient reason for interference with the order of the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority, the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot interfere with the same.

The proved charges clearly establish that the petitioner, who was a member of the disciplined force, failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and his misconduct and misbehaviour with his senior officials under the influence of liquor and threatened to kill them and also threatened to kidnap the child of an official were prejudicial to the department. That the relevant rule prescribes punishment of dismissal from service for the charges levelled against the petitioner, taking in consideration the family circumstances and his length of service, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement in service. This Court finds that the punishment of compulsory retirement from service imposed on the petitioner is quite reasonable. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, which was confirmed by the appellate authority, which was also affirmed by the revisional authority.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails. No valid grounds have been made out to interfere with the well considered orders of the respondent authorities. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.