Civil Writ Petition No.19174 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19174 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 19, 2011 Mohammad Mushtaq .....Petitioner VERSUS The Union of India & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Jaspal Kaur Gurna, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of two writ petitions bearing Nos. 19174 and 21612 of 2010. The petitioners in both the writ petitions have sought quashing of the orders dated 17.8.2009(Annexure P-2) and 8.3.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by D.I.G.P. CRPF and I.G.P. CRPF, Jalandhar respectively, vide which the petitioners have been compulsorily retired. The petitioners would plead that the impugned orders are totally illegal and arbitrary and hence, have filed these writ petitions to impugn the orders. Since the punishment imposed on the petitioners arose out of the same incident, these writ petitions are being disposed of together through this common order. Facts are noticed from C.W.P. Civil Writ Petition No.19174 of 2010 -2- No.19174 of 2010. The petitioner claims to have rendered 28 years service without any allegation. In both the petitions, the petitioners were chargesheeted with the allegation that they had manhandled Sub Inspector Pale Ram and even threatened to kill him. Inquiry officer was detailed to inquire into the charges so framed against the petitioners. As per the petitioner, the charges could only be proved partially. The Commandant, who was the competent punishing authority, however, differed with the finding and through his order dated 15.5.2009 imposed a penalty of removal from service. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the D.I.G.P., CRPF, who was rather liberal and generous to the petitioner and commuted the punishment of removal from service to compulsorily retirement through his order dated 17.8.2009. This order was upheld by the I.G. P., CRPF on 8.3.2010 and the petitioners still have chosen to file the present writ petitions. When this writ petition came up for hearing on 9.8.2011, this Court took serious notice of the allegations made against the petitioner and the manner of disposing of the serious charges made against the petitioner under Section 11(1) of Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (for short 'the CRPF Act'). The petitioner had caused grievous hurt to their superior officer, who was complainant, but still they were let off lightly. In fact, the petitioner could have been made answerable for a criminal charge and even dealt with under the provisions of the CRPF Act by the Commandant, who had the power to deal with such heinous offence, considering the injury caused by the petitioner. The petitioners were clearly chargeable Civil Writ Petition No.19174 of 2010 -3- under Section 9 of the CRPF Act which creates more heinous offences and punishments. Section 9 (b) prohibits the use of or attempts to use criminal force to, or an assault on his superior officer. The allegations against the petitioners could be more appropriately dealt with under Section 9. It can be assumed that the Central Government has invested the Commandant with power of the Magistrate in terms of Section 16 of the CRPF Act. Accordingly, directions were issued to the respondents to file an affidavit as to why action was not initiated against the petitioner either for proceeding against them for criminal misconduct or by proceedings against this under Section 9 read with Section 16 of the CRPF Act. An affidavit of the I.G.P., CRPF is handed over in the Court today. The same is taken on record. It is disclosed in the affidavit that complaint under Section 9 (b) of the CRPF Act could have been lodged by the Commanding Officer before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and the trial Court could have been conducted accordingly. This mode was not adopted because of the company being deployed in a far flung naxal infested area like Malkangiri where it was not feasible to hold trial due to heavy operational commitments. Accordingly, it was considered appropriate by the Commandant to proceed against the petitioner departmentally. It is however stated that the injured is free to lodge criminal case against the petitioners. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned orders would show that while performing duties as Head Constable, the petitioners in both the petitions are accused of manhandled Sub Inspector Pale Ram Civil Writ Petition No.19174 of 2010 -4- besides threatening to kill him. Initially, a preliminary inquiry was held followed by an inquiry. The inquiry officer recorded the statement of certain witnesses. The petitioners were given opportunity to defend themselves, but they did not produce any witness in their defence. On the basis of evidence led by the prosecution, the Commandant rightly came to the conclusion that at the time of incident three personnel namely SI/GD Pale Ram and both the petitioners (Md. Mustaq and Vinod Kumar Singh) were only present and thus, the petitioners alone were involved and no other official was present. The statement of SI/GD Pale Ram complainant- victim was, thus, noticed. The version given by the victim could not be disbelieved as he had suffered an injury, which was self explanatory. The victim had sustained two lacerations having the size of 1x1 cm and 3x1 cm each about 1 cm deep in the midline of his head. The Commandant rightly appreciated that there could not have been any other reason than alleged by the victim about the cause of his injury. The Commandant had, thus, justly and rightly arrived at the conclusion holding the petitioners guilty and responsible for the offences. To my mind, the allegations established against the petitioners were rather serious in nature. Such a conduct in a disciplined force like CRPF would be beyond tolerance. Considering the gravity of the offence, the petitioners have been rather let off lightly. They were required to be made answerable for this serious misconduct where they had caused injury to their superior officers in the course of performance of duties. D.I.G.P., CRPF as well as the I.G.P., CRPF have shown unfair and unplaced sympathy to the Civil Writ Petition No.19174 of 2010 -5- petitioners by commuting their punishment of removal from service to that of compulsorily retirement. The persons like the petitioners did not deserve any sympathy as it may make their conduct look venial Sympathy has no role in law. Since there is no challenge raised in regard to punishment imposed on the petitioners, I say nothing more than what has been observed above. There is no merit in the writ petitions and both the writ petitions are dismissed. August 19, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE