Letters Patent Appeal No. 220 of 2009 ….... In the matter of an appeal under clause 10 of Letters Patent Christopher Kujur …. …. …. Appellant Versus 1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi 2. Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Signal Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Ranchi 3. Deputy Director (Communication), Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi …. …. …. Respondents ….... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. B. MANGALMURTI For the Appellant : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Ms. Shilpi John, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate B.B.Mangalmurti, J.
C.A.V ON:11.07.2017 PRONOUNCED ON:29.08.2017 Instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.04.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No.2813 of 2000 whereby and whereunder finding no merit the writ application of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The short fact of the case is that appellant being a constable serving in Central Reserve Police Force (in short C.R.P.F.) while posted at Ranchi in the year 1996, was served with a charge of committing misconduct for consuming country made liquor before joining duty in Quarter Guard and was found in drunken condition. The further charge was that on 30.06.1996 he absented himself from duty without any permission and continued to remain absent till 03.07.1996. After enquiry, he was found guilty of misconduct and was removed from service. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. but the same was rejected on 10.02.1997. The appellant preferred writ petition bearing no. C.W.J.C. No.974 of 1998(R) challenging the order of removal from service but the same was disposed of on 05.08.1999 with a liberty to move before the appellate authority with respect to quantum of punishment. It was also observed that if any representation is filed for award of lesser punishment, the appellate authority will determine the same in accordance with law. Against that a L.P.A. was preferred but the same was permitted to be withdrawn. A representation was filed in view of the observation made in the said writ application. However, the representation was filed with a prayer to reduce quantum of punishment imposed upon him but the same was rejected on 11.04.2000. 2 3. Aggrieved by the said order of appellate authority, he again preferred writ application numbered as W.P.(S) No.2813 of 2000 but met the same fate and was dismissed finding no merit in the application. The appellant challenged the said judgment and order in this appeal on the ground that the charges against the appellant fall under the category of less heinous offence but the punishment imposed upon him was disproportionate to the charges levelled against him.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the charges framed against the appellant was with regard to intoxication but it was alleged that in the stage of intoxication he had committed any overt act. Elaborating the point he also submitted that in the stage of intoxication he has neither assaulted or abused his colleague or any officials of the Force. He further submitted that the writ Court has not considered that absence from the duty for about four days was so grave which attract removal from the service. Therefore, the punishment was disproportionate to the charges levelled upon him. The writ Court could have considered that there was no complain during his entire length of service nor he had faced any other departmental proceeding previously. The appellant approached this Court in its writ jurisdiction with prayer that minor punishment could have been awarded as the punishment was disproportionate to his conduct.
5. Mr. Binod Singh, counsel appearing for the Union of India and other respondents submitted that appellant was given full opportunity to defend himself but he was held guilty by the Enquiry Officer and was awarded punishment pursuant to the practice followed in the Force just to keep the Force disciplined and to deter the members of the Force for not indulging in such type of act.
6. Considering the above submissions of the parties as well as materials brought on record, it appears that the writ Court considered the proposition in Union of India & Others Versus Ghulam Mohd. Bhat reported in (2005)13 SCC228as well as Ram Saran Versus IG of Police, CRPF & Others reported in (2006) 2 SCC541and held that the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision making process. The courts should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court. The punishment of removal from service for absence without sanctioned leave, can be awarded under Section 11(1) read with Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, by competent authority even if delinquent is not prosecuted for an offence under Section 9 or Section 3 10 of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. In the instant case, the petitioner has also admitted his guilt and charges were held proved after affording full opportunity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court again reiterated its position in Chandra Kumar Chopra Versus Union of India & Ors. reported in (2012) 6 SCC369wherein it has been held that primary obligation of a member of Armed Forces is to maintain discipline in all aspects. It has been held that the doctrine of proportionality is uninvocable. In case of S.R.Tewari Versus Union of India & Another reported in (2013) 6 SCC602the court has also considered that scope of judicial review of punishment awarded by disciplinary authority is extremely limited. The Court can interfere with quantum of punishment only where punishment awarded is found to be shockingly or strikingly disproportionate to gravity of misconduct or is arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. Court cannot while exercising power of judicial review, interfere with punishment merely because it considers punishment to be disproportionate. It is only in extreme cases which on its face, show perversity or irrationality that there can be judicial review of punishment and courts should not interfere merely on compassionate grounds.
7. In Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan & Others Versus J.
Hussain reported in (2013) 10 SCC106the primary allegation against the respondent was that he had forcibly entered into the office of Principal of Kendriya Vidayala Sangthan,Tura in the State of Meghalaya where he was posted and working as Upper Division Clerk on 24.05.2000 at around 11.30 a.m. when he was in a fully drunken state. In his reply, he admitted the incident but he took the plea that he did not enter the office of Principal forcibly. The respondent also offered his unconditional apology for consumption of alcohol and requested the disciplinary authority to take a sympathetic view of the matter and requested for pardon. Since the respondent had admitted the charge, so no regular enquiry were done and on the basis of his admission the order were passed, imposing penalty of removal from service for the said misconduct. The departmental appeal filed by the respondent was also dismissed by the appellate authority. The Central Administrative Tribunal also dismissed his petition. However, the High Court found the penalty of removal from service to be disproportionate to the nature and gravity of misconduct and directed reinstatement of the respondent into service with continuity of service for the purpose of pensionary benefit. The further direction was that the respondent would not be entitled to two increments without any cumulative effect and no back wages for the intervening period. 4 According to the High Court, the aforesaid penalty instead of removal would meet the ends of justice. In these circumstances, the appellant-school approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Court held that it is the disciplinary authority who can decide as to what kind of punishment is to be imposed. Of course, these discretion has to be examined objectively keeping in mind nature and gravity of charge. It was further held that the order of appellate authority while having a relook at the case would, obviously examine as to whether the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is reasonable or not. If the appellate authority is of the opinion that the case warrants lesser penalty, it can reduce penalty so imposed by the disciplinary authority. Such a power which vests with the appellate authority departmentally is ordinarily not available to the Court or a tribunal. The Court while undertaking judicial review of the matter is not supposed to substitute its own opinion on reappraisal of facts. In exercise of power of judicial review, however, the Court can interfere with the punishment imposed when it is found to be totally irrational or is outrageous in defiance of logic. This limited scope of judicial review is permissible and interference is available only when the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, suggesting lack of good faith. Otherwise, merely because in the opinion of the court lesser punishment would have been more appropriate, cannot be a ground to interfere with the discretion of the departmental authorities. It was the respondent employee who had gone to the place of work in drunken state under the influence of alcohol during working hour which would itself be a serious act of misconduct. What compounds the gravity of delinquency is that the place of work is not any commercial establishment but a school i.e. temple of learning. Even a similar act of this nature would have serious implication. In the case of Ramvir Singh Versus Union of India reported in (2009) 3 SCC97the appellant in that case was working as a constable in the Border Security Force. Penalty of removal from service was imposed upon him on account of his failure to return to the place of duty despite instructions given to him and refusal to take food in protest when he was punished and refusal to do pack drill while undergoing rigorous imprisonment. This Court held that the punishment imposed upon him was not disproportionate.
8. In this situation, as well as in the facts and circumstances of the case, the enquiry officer found the conduct of the delinquent as were grave misconduct. The writ Court has also held that this is a disciplined Force namely Central Reserve Police Force and the petitioner has admitted his guilt. The charges 5 have been proved after affording full opportunity to him that he was fully drunk while he came on duty and further he did not turn up for four days thereafter without any leave. It was also held that the punishment of removal from service was proportionate to the gravity of misconduct. Therefore in such circumstances, we find no occasion to interfere in the findings of the writ Court.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (B.B.Mangalmurti, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, 29th August, 2017 Anit/NAFR