IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 1735 of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.1.2010 Karambir Singh --Petitioner Versus Union of India and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Prashant Vashisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Sharma, C.G.S.C for the respondents. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The only issue raised in the present petition relates to the competence of the disciplinary authority to impose a penalty of compulsory retirement against the petitioner. Briefly stated, the facts of the case leading to the filing of the present petition are as under:- The petitioner was posted as a Head Constable, General Duty in 119 Battalion CRPF. He was attached to Group Centre, CRPF Gurgaon. On 27.7.2005 Addl. Deputy Inspector General initiated departmental inquiry against the petitioner by serving articles of charge vide memo dated 3.9.2005. After seeking response of the petitioner to the charge sheet and being dissatisfied with the same Ms. Poonam Gupta, Deputy Commandant was appointed as Inquiry Officer vide office order dated 23.9.2005 to conduct a departmental inquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner. Respondent no.5-ADIGP, Group Centre CRPF, Gurgaon was appointed as disciplinary authority. The Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report. A copy of the inquiry report was served upon the petitioner CWP. No. 1735 of 2009 -2- vide letter dated 16.6.2006 asking him to submit a representation. After seeking the response of the petitioner the ADIGP, Group Centre CRPF, Gurgaon passed the order dated 14.9.2006 for compulsory retirement of the petitioner on the basis of the inquiry report, wherein charge no.1 was said to be proved against the petitioner and charge no.2 partly proved. The order of the disciplinary authority was challenged by the petitioner in appeal, revision and finally a petition to the Director General, CRPF, New Delhi. All the authorities have dismissed the appeal/revision/petition filed by the petitioner vide Annexures P-3, 4 and 5 respectively. Only one issue has been raised by the petitioner in the present petition disputing the competence of respondent no.5 to be the disciplinary authority. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner was posted in 119 Battalion when the articles of charges were served upon him. Thereafter, he was transferred to Group Centre on 29.11.2005, which was admittedly under the administrative control of the ADIGP, Group Centre CRPF, Gurgaon-respondent no.5. Petitioner has placed reliance upon Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 which prescribes the disciplinary authority for certain categories of officials. Rule 27 (b) is quoted hereunder:- “ The Commandant is the Disciplinary Authority in case of Non Gazetted Officers or men of other ranks and in case of Subordinate Officers such as Assistant Sub-Inspector, Inspectors and Subedar Major the Deputy Inspector General of Police will be the Disciplinary Authority.” Under the aforesaid rule the Commandant is the disciplinary authority in case of the non-gazetted officials and in case of subordinate officers i.e. from the rank of ASI to Subedar Major it is the DIGP who is the disciplinary authority. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the CWP. No. 1735 of 2009 -3- Commandant alone was competent to pass the impugned order. In the present case the order of compulsory retirement has been passed by respondent no.5, who is admittedly of the higher rank than the Commandant. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is admitted that under Rule 27 (b) of CRPF Rules the Commandant is the disciplinary authority of a Head Constable, General Duty. However, the Inspector General, Northern Sector CRPF, New Delhi vide order dated 27.7.2005 had appointed ADIGP, Group Centre CRPF, Gurgaon as the disciplinary authority to conduct departmental proceedings against the petitioner. It is admitted position that ADIGP, Group Centre CRPF, Gurgaon is a higher authority than the Commandant. Battalion 119 who was also under the Group Centre. Even though, Commandant is the disciplinary authority for the Head Constable, General Duty, however, respondent no.5 was constituted as a disciplinary authority by the competent authority. The competence of the higher authority cannot be disputed. It is settled law that no disciplinary action can be taken by an authority below the rank of appointing authority. In the present case the action has been taken by an authority above the rank of appointing authority that too on the basis of an appropriate order, whereby respondent no.5 was constituted as a disciplinary authority. The petitioner has neither challenged the findings of the Inquiry Officer in the present petition nor the order constituting respondent no.5 as the disciplinary authority. The contention of the petitioner is thus without any substance. No rule or law has been shown to establish that the higher authority is incompetent to initiate disciplinary proceedings particularly when he is duly authorized by the competent authority. No merit, petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 21.1.2010. lucky