IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17585 of 2009 1. SURESH KUMAR SINGH S/O HARIHAR PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL BARHARWA, P.O.BARHARWA, P.S. MAJORGANJ,DISTT-SITAMARHI, HEAD CONSTABLE NO.901140313, PRESENTLY POSTED IN 95 BATTALION, C.R.P.F. PAHARIYA MANDI, BANARAS, UTTER PRADESH Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME NEW DELHI 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL , C.R.P.F. BIHAR SECTOR , BAILEY ROAD ,PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL ,CRPF BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL , C.R.P.F. MUZAFFARPUR, BIHAR 5. THE COMMANDANT,133 BN,CRPF C/O 56 A.P.O 6. THE COMMANDANT 95 BN, CRPF, PAHARIYA MANDI, BANARAS,U.P. ----------- For the petitioner : M/S Arun Kumar & Md. Hussammuddin Azad, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate. ====== 3. 28.01.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as “C.R.P.F.”), who has filed counter affidavit which is taken on record. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the appellate and the revisional order passed in the departmental proceeding taken against him which is dated 10th January, 2003, Annexure-6 and 30th July, 2004, Annexure-11 which was communicated to him under Memo dated 17th August, 2009, Annexure-10 in compliance of the orders of the High Court dated 31.07.2009 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 9017 of 2009, Annexure-9. 3. It appears, petitioner was proceeded against for the charges communicated to him under office order dated 11th October, 1999, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit alleging that petitioner attempted to assert political pressure for cancellation of his transfer order and thereby committed misconduct punishable under Section 11(1) of the C.R.P.F. Act 1949 as he along with another constable Satyendra Tiwari made telephone call to the senior C.R.P.F. officers and ADIGP, Mokama Ghat impersonating himself as a M.P., Lok - 2 - Sabha for getting the transfer order cancelled. The appellate authority under orders dated 10th January, 2003, Annexure-6 vide paragraph 4 of the said order set aside the removal of the petitioner observing as follows :- “4. On going through the D.E. proceedings, discussion on the appeal made by the delinquent vide para-3 of the order, the undersigned has come to conclusion that the charges levelled against the delinquent are partially proved during the course of enquiry. However from enquiry proceedings it reveals that E.O. has not recorded statement of the then Addl. DIGP, Mokamahghat, Ct. Satyendra Kumar Tiwari and owner of STD Booth, Ramtola which were very relevant with the case. Moreover from exhibit No. 11 and statement of PWs, it is not established that the delinquent had made telephonic call to Addl. DIGP., Mokamahghat and tried to apply political pressure for getting his transfer order cancelled. Awarding such a major punishment when the charges were not fully proved is not justified. Keeping in view the above facts, his satisfactory past records and young age the removal order passed against appellant by Commandant 133 Bn, CRPF vide his office order No. P-VIII-2/02-EC-II dated 10/6/02 is considered too much harsh (harsh). I, therefore, take a lenient view and accordingly the punishment of Removal from Service is hereby set aside and No. 901140313 Ex-CT(GD) Suresh Kumar Singh is reinstated into service with the following orders :- (i). No. 901140313 CT(GD) Suresh Kumar Singh of 133 Bn, CRPF is hereby awarded 28 days confinement to Quarter Guard with fore feature of pay and allowances. (ii). Intervening period from the date of removal from service (i.e. 10/6/02 to date of reporting in 133 Bn for duty) on reinstatement is treated as B.O.L. (iii). No. 901140313 Ex-CT(GD) Suresh Kumar - 3 - Singh will report for his duty to the office of the Commandant 133 Bn, CRPF within 15 days on receipt of this order.” 4. It is thus, evident from the aforesaid finding recorded by the appellate authority that the charge levelled against the petitioner was not proved on account of failure to examine the witnesses, namely, the Addl. DIGP, Mokamaghat, Constable Satyendra Kumar Tiwari and the owner of the S.T.D. booth Ram Tola, yet the appellate authority by way of punishment confined the petitioner to Quarter Guard for 28 days with forfeiture of pay and allowance with further direction that the intervening period from the date of removal from service till the date of reinstatement be treated as extraordinary leave. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid appellate order dated 10th January,2003 by filing revision which was dismissed under orders dated 30th July, 2004, Annexure-11 without interfering with the punishment imposed under order dated 10th January, 2003. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the findings recorded by the appellate authority there is hardly any difficulty in concluding that the charges levelled against the petitioner has failed on account of failure to examine the witnesses, the punishment which was awarded under the appellate order, ought not to have been awarded as for awarding such punishment finding of guilt is required to be recorded. 6. Counsel for the Union of India, however, has opposed the submission. He submitted that the petitioner was exonerated of the charges not on merit but only on account of failure of the authorities to examine the witnesses, the appellate authority having considered the fact that petitioner was exonerated of the charges on account of - 4 - failure to examine the witnesses set aside the punishment of removal and awarded minor punishment, this Court should be slow in interfering with the same. I regret not to accept the aforesaid submission. 7. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India as also having perused the findings recorded by the appellate authority in paragraph 4 of the order dated 10th January, 2003, Annexure-6 I am satisfied that the charges levelled against the petitioner having failed, petitioner should not have been awarded any punishment. Accordingly, I set aside the punishment imposed on the petitioner under order dated 10th January, 2003, Annexure-6 and further direct that the petitioner be paid entire arrears of salary with consequential benefits with effect from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement. 8. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)