Abdul Quadir Khan v. UOI & Ors.

1. The petitioner challenges an order of dismissal dated 25.07.1998 issued by the disciplinary authority of the respondent, Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as the “CRPF”). This order was confirmed in appeal on 09.12.1998 and subsequently with the dismissal of petitioner’s revision petition on 12.01.2000.

2. The petitioner had joined the CRPF on 28.08.1993. At the relevant time in May-June 1997, he was posted in the 134 Battalion at Srinagar. In relation to an incident which occurred on 30.06.1997, involving his conduct, a complaint was received from one Naik Pushpender Singh stating that the petitioner disobeyed the lawful orders of his senior and secondly that on the same day “he pointed his service rifle fully loaded at his commander no.810714433 NK Pushpender Singh and threatened to kill him.” These 2015:DHC:7039-DB W.P.(C) 2422/2000 Page 2 charges were denied and one Deputy Commandant Gopi Chand enquired into the conduct and submitted his report. In terms of the enquiry reportwhich was based upon the depositions and statements of various CRPF personnel, the petitioner was held guilty of both charges. This forms the basis of the disciplinary authority’s order dismissing the petitioner from service.

3. It is contended on the petitioner’s behalf that the plea of guilt was never unequivocally recorded in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since Naik Pushpender Singh asked the petitioner to forthwith obey his command, since he (the petitioner) was not fully dressed, he could not comply immediately. It was highlighted that the plea of guilt therefore had to be seen in the context of the circumstances. Learned counsel pointed to the record, particularly the petitioner’s allegation that he never admitted the guilt but rather stated that “ Naik Pushpender Singh came to my room and said go for making balls of coke. Upon this I said I am coming Sir, after wearing my dress but he did not leave the room and he started abusing me and this resulted into quarrel.” It was submitted that the petitioner was never given a proper opportunity to defend himself and instead was made to sign in the course of the enquiry proceedings even though he was not aware as to what was recorded. Learned counsel also submitted that other irregularities occurred in that additional witnesses were examined contrary to the initial list of witnesses.

4. The CRPF has produced the record. This Court has considered the same. Three witnesses i.e. Inder Raj Singh, the complainant-Naik Pushpender Singh and NGI Singh have unequivocally deposed about both the incidents under charge. About the second incident which appears to be W.P.(C) 2422/2000 Page 3 more serious i.e. pointing the rifle at the Commander and threatening to shoot and kill him, the record in fact even shows the cross-examination of these witnesses. These proceedings further contained the petitioner’s signatures. These proceedings in fact took place on 18.12.1997. As to the petitioner’s submission that the second incident was never admitted to and had never occurred, this Court is unpersuaded by the contention. All the three witnesses clearly stated that petitioner did point his rifle (SLR) at the Commander and threatened to shoot him. Considering that the petitioner was deployed in a disturbed area i.e. Kashmir at the relevant time, the conduct was undoubtedly blameworthy. There could be some room for doubt as to the first incident i.e. whether in fact the petitioner sought for a little while to get ready and then comply with the order. However, even if some liberty would have to be given for his explanation i.e. about a quarrel, the basis of the second charge which was ultimately true leaves, no doubt about the veracity of this occurrence.

5. So far as the petitioner’s grievance with respect to unfair procedure or that he was made to sign the papers without being made aware as to what their contents were is concerned, we note that no such plea was urged in the appeal. The appeal merely highlights that he was at fault apparently in respect of the first charge. It nowhere raised a grievance with respect to the second charge which according to the disciplinary authority has been fully proved. We take note of the fact that in totality even if PW-7’s evidence were to be ignored (for a moment assuming that being an additional witness, his testimony should not be taken into account) the fact remains that there were other witnesses including PW-1. That apart, PW-7 and PW-8 were fully cross-examined – so much so that PW-7 was even asked about the W.P.(C) 2422/2000 Page 4 circumstances under which the rifle was pointed at the Commander by the petitioner.

6. After carefully considering all the records and submissions of the petitioner and also taking into account the fact that the record itself speaks of a previous similar incident of 1995 which was taken into account, and given that the petitioner had served apparently for four years, we are of the opinion that no interference on account of failure of natural justice or on account of disproportionate punishment is called for.

7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

DEEPA SHARMA, J. AUGUST 27, 2015 rb