RSA No. 1980 of 2010(O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 1980 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: March 16,2011 Sumer Singh ..Appellant Versus Union of India and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present: Mr. N.S. Shekhawat,Advocate for the appellant. ... L.N.Mittal,J.(Oral) Sumer Singh plaintiff, who was successful in the trial Court but has been non-suited by the lower Appellate Court, has filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiff was enrolled in Central Reserve Police Force (for short,”CRPF”) on 10.10.1983. Vide impugned order dated 30.3.1999, departmental inquiry was ordered against the plaintiff for remaining absent on 3 occasions for 30 days, 8 days and 12 days. Vide impugned order dated 21.10.1999, the plaintiff was dismissed from service and his medals and decorations have also been forfeited. Consequential order dated 9.5.2000 was also passed. All these three orders have been challenged by the plaintiff by filing suit alleging the same to be null and void being in violation of principles of natural justice. It was also alleged that order of dismissal could not be passed under Section 11 (1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act (hereinafter referred to as the “CRPF Act”), which provides for minor punishment only. Defendants contested the suit and controverted the grounds pleaded by the plaintiff to challenge the impugned orders. Defendants alleged that there was charge of disobedience of orders and neglect of duty by the RSA No. 1980 of 2010(O&M) 2 plaintiff by deserting the Force on three occasions for 30 days, 12 days and 8 days. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 4.8.2005 decreed the plaintiff's suit. However, first appeal filed by the defendants has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 4.9.2009 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act provides for minor punishment only and therefore, major punishment of dismissal from service could not be imposed on the plaintiff by initiating inquiry under Section 11 of the CRPF Act. The contention cannot be accepted. Section 11 of the CRPF Act provides that minor punishment specified therein can be imposed in addition to or in lieu of suspension or dismissal. It is thus manifest from the bare language of the section that minor punishment provided therein can be imposed even in addition to the punishment of dismissal. Consequently, it cannot be said that punishment of dismissal cannot be imposed after initiating inquiry under Section 11 of the CRPF Act. In this view, I am supported by judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India and others Versus Ghulam Mohd. Bhat-2006(3) SCT 178. In view of this direct authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no escape from the conclusion that punishment of dismissal imposed on the plaintiff is not in violation of Section 11 of the CRPF Act. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that impugned dismissal order has been passed without taking into consideration the length of service put in by the plaintiff. However, no such specific ground has been pleaded in the plaint to challenge the dismissal order, although in prayer paragraph, it was pleaded that if reinstatement is not ordered, the plaintiff may RSA No. 1980 of 2010(O&M) 3 be granted pension for the service rendered till passing of the dismissal order. However, the dismissal order cannot be set aside on the ground that the plaintiff had put in service of almost 16 years before the dismissal order was passed. The plaintiff was found guilty of disobedience of orders of superior authorities and neglect of duty by deserting the Force on three occasions. Consequently, punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be grossly disproportionate to the misconduct of the plaintiff so as to shock the conscience of the Court warranting interference in quantum of punishment by the Court. On the contrary, the plaintiff was enrolled in disciplined Force and was, therefore, expected to observe highest standards of discipline. However, instead of doing so, the plaintiff disobeyed the orders of his superiors and neglected his duty and deserted the Force on three occasions. A person who does not follow the discipline of the Force cannot be allowed to remain in the disciplined force. In the case of Ghulam Mohd. Bhatt (supra), punishment of removal from service for over staying leave period was upheld. It was held that punishment of removal from service can be awarded to a member of disciplined Force for over staying the leave period. Consequently, the punishment of dismissal imposed on the plaintiff for disobeying the orders of superiors and for neglect of duty by deserting the Force on three occasions does not warrant interference at the hands of the Court. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. The question relating to interpretation of Section 11 of the CRPF Act has already been answered authoritatively by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Mohd. Bhatt (supra). The appeal is thus found to be having no merit and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. March 16,2011 (L.N.MITTAL) nk JUDGE