Manjeet Kumar v. Union of India

1. The petitioner in the instant case has prayed for setting aside of the order dated 9th April, 2011 whereby punishment of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner on the recommendations of the enquiry officer. The petitioner has also impugned the order dated 15th July, 2011 passed by the appellate authority and the order of the revisional authority dated 16th December, 2011 upholding the order of removal from service. The order dated 9th April, 2011 has been passed after holding disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to a chargesheet dated 31st July, 2013:DHC:6290-DB 2010 on the following charges: Article 1 That Force No.001373612 Sepoy/GD Manjit Kumar of G/134 Battalion while working on the post of Sepoy/GD has committed an offence of misconduct being a member of the Force under Section 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949 and committed of misconduct and indiscipline whereby he was nominated for the advance party leaving for Sindri on 18/4/2010 and he left a letter in the office that he running away from camp and the same was later on admitted by him in the cross examination in the preliminary enquiry. Hence he has committed the offence of running away from the camp which is against the orders and discipline of the Force. Article 2 That Force No.001373612 Sepoy/GD Manjit Kumar of G/134 Battalion while working on the post of Sepoy/GD has committed an offence of misconduct being a member of Force under Section 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949 and committed misconduct and indiscipline wherein when Force No.001373612 Sepoy/GD Manjit Kumar of G/134 Battalion was undergoing anti national operation training at Group Centre CRPF Sindri run away from the camp on 1/5/2010 and remained absent from duty from 1/5/2010 to 20/7/2010 for total 80 days without leave / permission of the competent authority. Hence Force No.001373612 Sepoy/GD Manjit Kumar of G/134 Battalion has committed the offence of misconduct and indiscipline which is against the orders and discipline of the Force and is a punishable offence.

2. The petitioner had accepted his culpability and charges resulting in the inquiry officer finding him guilty of the charges. The order dated 9th April, 2011 resulted as a consequence thereof.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid orders on the ground that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is grossly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. Respondents have strongly disputed this contention and in the counter affidavit have additionally pointed out the offences and penalties imposed upon the petitioner.

4. The orders dated 9th April, 2011 of the disciplinary authority, impugned order dated 15th July, 2011 of the appellate authority and order dated 16th December, 2011 of the revisional authority are reasoned and based on a detailed consideration of the facts and circumstances leading to the removal of the service of the petitioner. The same have not been faulted on any legally tenable ground. The allegation is premised on his admission.

5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is commensurate with the gravity of the charges against him. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.

6. The petitioner in the alternative has prayed in the writ petition to grant compassionate allowance to him. The petitioner is certainly entitled to consideration of this prayer by the respondents.

7. We, accordingly, while dismissing the writ petition so far as the challenge to the impugned orders is concerned and upholding the punishment imposed upon the petitioner, we grant liberty to him to make an appropriate representation to the respondents for grant of the compassionate allowance.

8. We also make it clear that while considering the request for compassionate allowance, the competent authority shall examine the same uninfluenced by the previous observations made by the respondents in the impugned order as well as by the order we have recorded today. An independent view shall be taken on the entire issue. A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed which shall be promptly conveyed to the petitioner.

9. The present writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. GITA MITTAL, J DEEPA SHARMA, J DECEMBER 05, 2013