IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11392 of 2006 CONSTABLE DINESH PAL SINGH Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shivaji Pandey, Sr. Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, Advocate -------------- 3 11.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India. Petitioner was a Constable (General Duty) under the C.R.P.F. At the relevant time he was posted in Assam. On 01.08.2003, the petitioner after the Roll Call at 18.30 P.M. slipped out of the Police Camp without any permission or authority of the superiors. It is alleged that thereafter he consumed liquor in the local Bazar got into a fight with the local villagers, in the intoxicated state, over the issue of reaching him to a house of ill- repute. It is further alleged that even earlier he had been cautioned and warned over such issue and his behaviour. The conduct of the petitioner took a serious turn and created quite an uproar which caught the attention of media on the issue. The petitioner was apprehended and brought to the camp and the Commandant acting as a Chief Judicial Magistrate under the C.R.P.F. Act by invoking power under Section 10(N), decided to convict him and sentence him to simple imprisonment vide his order dated 09.05.2003. Based on this order by invoking powers under Section 12 of the Act, the petitioner was dismissed from - 2 - service. The conviction of the petitioner even as of today stays because he has not bothered to challenge the same before a court of competent jurisdiction. He has carried out his fight with regard to the punishment order of dismissal both by moving the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. The primary attack of the petitioner on the order of punishment of dismissal is that merely because the petitioner is subjected to imprisonment it does not mean that he had to be dismissed from service. There is an element of discretion available with the respondents which has not been exercised properly and a harsh of order of punishment has been imposed against him. According to the petitioner the punishment is shocking to the conscience. He has no answer however for the punishment or imprisonment order which had already been passed against him. Petitioner relies on a few decisions rendered in the case of Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 2386; Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank Vs. Employees Association 2007 (4) SCC 669 and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Hazarilal 2008 (3) SCC 273; on the question of proportionality. According to him the present case is also of the kind where the respondents ought to have taken a lenient view, even if the background to the conviction is accepted on the face value. - 3 - Learned counsel for the respondents however resists the relief which the petitioner is claiming on the ground that the decision taken against the petitioner is well founded. The allegations or the charges were well established, proved and are serious in nature, especially if it is viewed from the point of view that the petitioner belongs to a uniformed disciplined force. Looking at the sensitivity of the local people where the petitioner was posted, the hostility due to misconduct which was caused since he is from Para-Military Force and also keeping in mind that the petitioner not only slipped out of the Camp after Roll Call, consumed liquor in public place and created a scene for being provided service of a woman of easy virtue does not reflect well on the discipline of the petitioner. The Court has no hesitation in holding that the conviction of the petitioner coupled with his behaviour does not make the C.R.P.F. any proud, nor will his retention in the Force. In the totality of the facts the Court is not convinced that the order of dismissal which has been passed against the petitioner in the given background is an order which is harsh or excessive. The order of punishment requires no interference. The writ application is accordingly, dismissed. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)