IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.514 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18099 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Home Department, New Delhi 2. The Director General of Police, C.R.P.F., New Delhi 3. The Inspector General of C.R.P.F., Bihar Sector, Shekhpura, Bailey Road, Patna 4. The D.I.G., C.R.P.F. Near Jagdeo Path More, Bailey Road, Patna 5. The Additional D.I.G., Group Centre, C.R.P.F., MKG, Mokama Ghat, District Patna 6. Enquiry Officer, MKG Mokama, C.R.P.F. in Departmental Proceeding of Ranvir Singh (Writ Petitioner), Mokamahat, District- Patna .... .... Appellant/s Versus Ex CT Ranvir Singh, Son of Sri Umaraon Singh, Resident of village- Manpur (Shekpur), P.S. and P.O. Shikarpur, District Buland Sahar (U.P.), Pin Code-202395, An Ex of Group Centre, C.R.P.F., Mokama Ghat, Patna, Ex ct No.680955454 .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mithilesh Kr. Rai, Sr. Panel Counsel, UOI Mr Shiva Kumar, CGC For the Respondent/s : Mr Ram Suresh Roy, Sr. Advocate Mr Deo Raj Kumar Prasad, Advocate Smt. Savitri Devi, Advocate ====================================================== 7 27-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent/ writ petitioner. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 19.7.2010 whereby writ petition preferred by sole respondent against dismissal order dated 23.11.2005 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) and against the appellate and revisional orders contained in Annexures 12 and 14 has been allowed to a limited extent and while the disciplinary proceeding has been held to be in accordance with law, the Inspector General, CRPF, Bihar Sector Patna High Court LPA No.514 of 2011 (7) dt.27-09-2011 2 has been directed to reconsider the quantum of punishments with a further direction to reduce the punishment imposed on the writ petitioner by giving him one more chance to improve himself because prior to 1996 during service of about 7-8 years, the service record of the writ petitioner was without any blemish. Although there is no requirement of going into the details of the entire disciplinary proceeding but it may be usefully noted that the Writ Court has in paragraph 2 noted the earlier misconducts and punishments awarded to the writ petitioner prior to present proceeding leading to his dismissal in 1997. The Writ Court has noted that according to enquiry report, the writ petitioner was found guilty of three charges but the nature of charges have not been noticed which was necessary, in our view, for considering whether the punishment was disproportionate to the charges or not. All the three articles of charges have been extracted in paragraph 3 of the memorandum of appeal. They show that while deputed for Sentry duty at the Centre Campus of CRPF at Mokamaghat on 10.8.1996, the writ petitioner deserted his picket at 22.45 hours without prior permission of the competent authority/ Guard Commander and went to family quarters. He remained absent till 6.00 hours on 11.8.1996 causing prejudice to good order and discipline of the force. Another Patna High Court LPA No.514 of 2011 (7) dt.27-09-2011 3 charge relating to the same period is that on 10.8.1996 after leaving duty without permission at 22.45 hours, the writ petitioner went to family quarters allotted to one Havaldar Singh. He abused, misbehaved with him, his family and threatened to kill them. He deserted the Campus and remained absent till 6.00 hours on 11.8.1996. The charge mentions the fact that the writ petitioner had earlier also used unparliamentary languages against Subedar Major and other officers of the Campus on 21.4.1996 for which he was warned by the DIG GC, Mokamaghat through letter dated 8.6.1996. He did not change his manners and on 8.5.1996 he had abused CHM when he was advised not to enter into the Sentry Post of Quarter Guard on a bicycle. For such conduct the writ petitioner was awarded punishment of “Service Censure” by the DIG GC, Mokamaghat but that did not bring about change his attitude and conduct. The third article of charge is to the effect that the writ petitioner refused to receive copies of the orders of the competent authority through the Assistant Commandant (Adm) which was prejudicial and detrimental for discipline of the force and punishable under the CRPF Act and the Rules. Through a supplementary affidavit the appellants have in paragraph 3 given details of four punishments inflicted upon the writ petitioner while he was posted to Group Centre, CRPF, Patna High Court LPA No.514 of 2011 (7) dt.27-09-2011 4 Mokamaghat prior to his dismissal on account of incidents and charges noticed above. At the end of paragraph 3, it is mentioned that another departmental enquiry for the offence of abusing CC (Hqr), GC, CRPF, Mokamaghat on 5.2.1997 is also pending and the said proceeding has been kept suspended. The order of dismissal passed in 1997 was set aside by this Court by judgment and order contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition dated 12.5.2005 only because the punishment order was passed before expiry of 15 days from the receipt of second show cause notice which granted 15 days time to the writ petitioner for reply. Thereafter, fresh opportunity of show cause was given and the order of dismissal impugned before the Writ Court dated 23.11.2005 has been passed by the authorities. The law is well settled that in writ jurisdiction the High Court cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. Only when the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority shocks the conscience of the High Court, it may appropriately mould the relief and direct the disciplinary/ appellate authority to reconsider the penalty. The judicial conscience of the Court may be shaken if the charges are of minor nature and the penalty is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges proved. This Patna High Court LPA No.514 of 2011 (7) dt.27-09-2011 5 principle is laid down in several judgments of the Apex Court including in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 484. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, we come to the conclusion that since the writ petitioner/ respondent herein was a Jawan of uniformed force i.e. CRPF, his conduct undermining discipline and security of the Camp cannot be viewed as a minor lapse and only because the earlier service span from 1988 was without blemish, various punishments at Mokamaghat imposed in the year 1996 and the gravity of the charges leading to dismissal cannot be overlooked. In our considered view, the penalty imposed upon the respondent was not disproportionate so as to call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In view of above, the order under appeal is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed. This appeal shall stand allowed. No costs. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)