THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.3433 OF 2000 Date: 21.10.2011 Between: Bande Oran …..Petitioner And The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi and others …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.3433 OF 2000 ORDER: In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner who at the relevant time was working as Head Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), 113 Battalion, stationed in Warangal District is questioning the validity of the punishment imposed upon him for remissness in duty. 2. The facts which led to the filing of this writ petition and the points involved are these. At the relevant time, as already stated supra, the petitioner was working as Head Constable in the CRPF, 113 Batallion stationed in Warangal District. A disciplinary enquiry was commenced against him on three charges. The first charge is that on 10.6.1998 on a written requisition made by the Station House Officer, Pasra Outpost Police Station, the petitioner has sent one section strength of CRPF battalion deployed in Warangal District for clearance of land mine without obtaining prior permission of his superior officers. The second charge is that after dispatching the force mentioned in the first charge he failed to keep in touch with them. The third charge is that after dispatching the CRPF force concerned he even failed to maintain the wireless set properly provided to the force and that resulted in failure of communication between him and his force and also his superiors. 3. An enquiry was held in accordance with the CRPF Rules, 1955. The petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself of all the three charges and he filed his written explanation also. After holding the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report concluding that the first charge insofar as it relates to dispatch of the force without prior permission of his superiors stood proved and that the charge relating to not informing the superiors was not proved as the petitioner informed the same to his superiors. So far as the second and third charges are concerned, the enquiry officer found that they were fully proved. 4. After considering the enquiry report, the initial disciplinary authority i.e. the third respondent herein who is the Commandant, 111 Battalion, CRPF, Warangal, by his order dated 15.1.1999, imposed a penalty of reduction in time scale for a period of two years with effect from 15.1.1999 and stoppage of increments during that period. The details of the punishment are given in the order itself of the third respondent and it is not necessary to repeat them here. Against the order of the third respondent, the petitioner filed a departmental appeal before the second respondent, but the second respondent dismissed the appeal by his order dated 10.1.1999. Questioning the said orders of the third and second respondents, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 5. Here it should be mentioned that it is the case of the petitioner that though the incident occurred on 10.6.1998, he was promoted as Sub- Inspector of Police (SI) by the proceedings dated 22.7.1998 of the Directorate General, CRPF, New Delhi and he was not relieved from his post of Head Constable to join the post of SI as the enquiry was pending and that is illegal inasmuch as the disciplinary enquiry proceedings themselves are illegal. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by one J.F.D’Souza, Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police of Group Centre, CRPF, Hyderabad on behalf of the respondents. Their plea is that the three charges levelled against the petitioner are based on record and the enquiry revealed that there was sufficient evidence to support the said charges and therefore the third respondent imposed the punishments referred to supra which have been confirmed by the second respondent. Their further plea is that since the findings of enquiry officer are based on evidence and the punishments were imposed keeping in view the lapses the same cannot be reviewed by this court as they do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. They have pleaded that there is an alternative remedy of revision which was not availed by the petitioner and consequently the writ petition has to dismissed on that ground alone. 7. Regarding the promotion of the petitioner as SI, it is pleaded by respondent that the order dated 22.7.1998, referred to supra, pertains not only to the petitioner but also some other candidates who were given promotion as SIs and that para 3 of the said promotion order clearly reads that promotions of the Head Constables to the post of SI are subject to condition that they are free from vigilance angle and no enquiry is pending or contemplated against them and if any enquiry is contemplated, the promotion is not to be given. 8. Smt. M.Kiranmayee, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the order of the third respondent and also the order of the second respondent and pointed out that all the three charges are baseless and in any event the punishment imposed is highly disproportionate and consequently the petitioner ought to have been exonerated of all the charges or in any event let off with a warning or with a similar lighter punishment. 9. On the other hand, Smt.C.Vani, Standing Counsel for the respondents pointed out that the disciplinary enquiry report is based on material and the conclusions of the third and second respondents cannot also be said to be perverse and consequently there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned orders. Regarding promotion of the petitioner she pointed out that unless the petitioner is exonerated, he cannot get promotion and therefore the respondents did not relieve the petitioner from Head Constable post to join the post of SI and it cannot also be said to be illegal. 10. It has now to be seen that whether the disciplinary enquiry and the conclusions of the authorities regarding the result of the enquiry and the punishments imposed can be said to be valid and proper. This is the first point. The second point relates to the quantum of punishment. 11. It may be noted that the first charge is that the petitioner dispatched a part of the force of CRPF in Warangal District for land mine clearance duty merely at the request of Station House Officer despite the fact that the said force was not equipped with weapons or equipments to clear the land mines. It is stated in the counter that because of this, the land mine blast occurred killing eight personnel of the CRPF and this was only due to the negligence of the petitioner in discharging his duties. A perusal of the orders of the third and second respondents would show that their conclusions regarding the first charge that he dispatched the force without prior permission has been proved. The other two charges as mentioned are connected to first charge. All the three charges having regard to the situation cannot also be said to be a minor dereliction of duty having regard to the back ground facts in which they have been framed. It can be said that charges are serious charges having regard to the situation prevailing there and also the purpose for which the CRPF force was stationed in Warangal District. Further a perusal of the orders of the third and second respondents would show that their conclusions are based on evidence and in any event they cannot be said to be perverse. Thus there is very little scope for this Court to interfere with the conclusions of the third and second respondents on the merits of the matter. 12. Then coming to the punishment imposed, it may be noted that the petitioner was not punished with a major penalty of dismissal or removal from service. The authorities imposed the penalty of reduction in time scale of pay and stoppage of increments for a period of two years and having regard to the charge proved, it can be said that the penalty cannot also be said to be disproportionate. Thus there is no ground to interfere with the penalty also. Thus both the points are decided against the petitioner. 13. Then coming to the promotion aspect, para 3 of the promotion order dated 22.7.1998 would show that the said order is to be implemented only in respect of those candidates whose record is clean and who are not facing any enquiry or against whom no enquiry is contemplated. In the present case, the incident occurred on 10.6.1998 and by that date, an enquiry was also ordered into the incident. In the counter it is stated that the petitioner was also served with charge-sheet on 22.4.1998 and it is the version of the respondents that it was in the above circumstances, the petitioner was not relieved from his Head Constable post to join promoted post of SI. More than 11 years have passed since then and the petitioner has retired from service. It is open for the petitioner to make a representation before the concerned authorities regarding his promotion having regard to the fact that the impugned order of the appellate authority dated 10.11.1999. On such representation, the CRPF authorities are directed to pass necessary orders regarding grant of promotional benefits to the petitioner keeping in view the time gap between the date of imposition of penalty and his date of retirement from service if any relief can be granted to him in that behalf as per rules. 14. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR 21st October, 2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.3433 OF 2000 DATE: 21.10.2011