Kanhaiya Kumar Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The petitioner is a Sub-Inspector/Steno in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF); posted at THDC Unit, Tehri Bhagirathipuram, District Tehri

Garhwal. On account of certain movement made by him, during the lockdown period as declared by the Government of India due to pandemic, he was

directed to undergo quarantine for a period from 25.05.2020 to 07.06.2020. He is accused of having escaped from the quarantine, which he was

undergoing for the aforesaid period and due to which the FIR was registered against him on 05.06.2020 for commission of the offence under the

provisions contained under Section 2, 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, to be read with Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and

Section 188 of IPC by way of an FIR No. 21 of 2020 dated 05.06.2020; registered against him at Thana Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-8, to the writ petition, which are the guidelines, which had

been issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Government of India to the State/Union Territories, for the purposes of laying down

and adherence of the norms to be followed during quarantine, during the lockdown period, which included the period of quarantine which a person has

to compulsorily undergo during this period. It was under these guidelines, which were issued on 15.04.2020 by the Union Home Secretary, that the

petitioner was placed under the quarantine for the period as referred above.

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that subsequent to the issuance of the said guidelines of 15.04.2020, the Government of

India had issued yet an another order on 30.05.2020; being an order No. 40-3/2020-DM-I(A) and particularly he has drawn the attention of this Court

to the clause-6 of the said office memorandum, wherein, the restrictions on the movement of persons and goods, were slightly diluted and slackened

by the said directions. Clause-6 is quoted hereunder:

“6. Unrestricted movement of persons and goods

(i) There shall be no restriction on inter-state and intra-State movement of persons and goods. No separate permission/approval/e-permit will be

required for such movements.

(ii) However, if a State/UT, based on reasons of public health and its assessment of the situation, proposes to regulate movement of persons, it will

give wide publicity in advance regarding the restrictions to be placed on such movement, and the related procedures to be followed.

(iii) Movement by passanger trains and Shramik special trains; domestic passenger air travel; movement of Indian Nationals stranded outside the

country and of specified persons to travel abroad; evacuation of foreign nationals; and sign- on and sign-off of Indian seafarers will continue to be

regulated as per SOPs issued.

(iv) No State/UT shall stop the movement of any type of goods/cargo for cross land-border trade under Treaties with neighbouring countries.â€​

(v)

Hence, he submits that his movement of 04.06.2020, would not be a violation of the guidelines of 15.04.2020 because it stood overridden by the

subsequent office memorandum dated 30.05.2020, which had permitted movement of person, inter-State and intra-State, for which no separate

permission or permit was required. Hence, he submits there would be no offence as complained against him as levelled in the FIR dated 05.06.2020,

being later to memorandum dated 30.05.2020.

Though, this court is not in agreement with this argument as extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the reason being, that relaxation

in the movement of person, which was given by the office memorandum of 30.05.2020; was not in any manner granting a relaxation to the quarantine,

which the person had to undergo in pursuance to the guidelines of 15.04.2020 issued by the Government of India for the period settled prior to office

memorandum dated 30.05.2020, and that is why the Government of India, consciously in the office memorandum of 30.05.2020, does not refer to any

latitude to have been provided to those persons, who were already undergoing the quarantine under the guidelines of 15.04.2020. Hence, this

argument, that clause-6 of the office memorandum dated 30.05.2020, would be attracted in his case too, is not accepted and the same is turned down.

The second argument, which has been extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since he is a government servant serving in CISF

and coupled with the fact that the nature of offence, which is complained of against him, it entails minor punishment of imprisonment of six months or

one year accordingly, he submits that considering the period of sentence, which may be levied as against the offences complained of against the

petitioner, no coercive action may be taken against him as it may be having much wider impeding repercussions on his services, which he is already

facing due to departmental proceedings, as his explanation has already been called by the superior officers, on 06.06.2020, on the same set of

allegations.

This Court, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the matter, at this stage is of the view that as the offence complained of against the

petitioner since it entails minor punishments, this writ petition is being disposed of with a direction that the petitioner would cooperate with the

investigation as being conducted by respondent no. 2. No coercive action would be taken by respondent no. 2 against the petitioner, in pursuance to

the FIR No. 21 of 2020 dated 05.06.2020 as registered against him, at Police Station Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal. In case if there is any dereliction

on part of the petitioner in cooperating with the investigation for the aforesaid offence referred in the FIR, it will be open for respondent no. 2 to take

an appropriate action in accordance with law.

Subject to the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.