COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 3348/2001 Harish Lal ….Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary (Home), New Delhi & Others …….Respondents Sri K.N. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Anjali Bhargava, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents. 21st May, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.2.1999 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), appellate order dated 8.1.2000 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF (Annexure 7 to the writ petition and revisional order dated 15.11.2000 passed by the Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Manipur (Annexure 9 to the writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus direction the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all monetary service benefits. 2 (iii) Issue any writ, order or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. 2. Petitioner Harish Lal was enlisted in CRPF as CT/GD w.e.f. 1.4.1986. On 4.12.1998, the petitioner consumed alcohol while on duty which was substantiated by medical examination report on the same date. For this act of offence, he was produced in the Orderly Room on 7.12.1998, where he was found in the state of intoxication. The petitioner was again medically examined and found to have consumed liquor. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 7.12.1998 and departmental enquiry was ordered against him on 22.12.1998. Prior to his suspension, the petitioner was found in the state of intoxication on four occasions i.e. on 15.2.1998, 9.6.1998, 20.10.1998 and 30.10.1998 and each time he was awarded the punishment of confinement to Quarter Guard. A departmental enquiry was ordered against the petitioner under Rule 27(A) of the CRPF Rules, 1955 read with Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. After the enquiry, charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved and the disciplinary authority, by virtue of power conferred upon him under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955, awarded the punishment of ‘Removal from Service’ to the petitioner. 3 3. Aggrieved with the impugned order of removal dated 11.2.1999, the petitioner preferred a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19611 of 1999 before Allahabad High Court. The High Court directed the petitioner to make representation before the appropriate authority for the redressal of his grievances. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the appellate authority vide his order dated 8.1.2000. 4. Aggrieved with above order of the appellate authority, the petitioner submitted revision petition which was rejected by the Inspector General of Police, CRPF vide his order dated 15.11.2000 upholding the orders dated 11.2.1999 and 8.1.2000 passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority respectively. 5. The main ground of challenge is that the punishment of removal from service cannot be awarded to the petitioner under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the disciplinary authority had erred in awarding the major penalty, whereas the charges leveled against the petitioner was under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 and, therefore, petitioner was liable to be awarded only minor punishment. Per contra, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner was found to be a habitual offender of consuming liquor during duty hours and the punishment of removal from service has rightly been inflicted upon the petitioner keeping in view the magnitude of indiscipline committed by the 4 petitioner and the disciplinary authority can award punishment under the provisions contained in Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 including the punishment of removal/dismissal from service as specified in the said Section. For the sake of convenience, Section 11(1) is quoted as under: “11. Minor Punishment.-(1) The Commandant or any other authority or officer as may be prescribed may, subject to any rules made under this Act, award in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal and one or more of the following punishments to any member of the Force whom he considers to be guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, or remission in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force, that is to say,- (a) reduction in rank; (b) fine of any amount not exceeding one month’s pay and allowance; (c) confinement to quarters, lines or camp for a term not exceeding one month; (d) confinement in the quarter-guard for not more than twenty-eight days, with or without punishment drill or extra guard, fatigue or other duty; and (e) removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in the Force.” 5 6. Learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents placed her reliance on the judgment and order dated 28.9.2006 passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3633 (S/S) of 2001, Govind Singh v. Union of India & Others, wherein it has been observed as under: “Perusal of sub-section clearly reveals that the Section (e), removal from any office of distinction is provided in the said punishment. The phrase provided in sub-section (1) ‘in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal’ is appearing in sub-section 11(1) before clause (a) to (e) shows that the authority mentioned therein are empowered to award punishment removal suspension under this Section. This phrase and sub-clause clearly provide that the punishment which has been awarded is in consonance with the provisions of the law. As such, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force.” 7. I fully agree with the view taken by the learned Coordinate Bench. Furthermore, the CRPF being a highly disciplined and responsible force, is required to maintain law and order and perform counter insurgency operations throughout the country particularly under disturbed conditions and is also 6 required to perform sensitive duties like protection of VVIPs and vulnerable installations of the Nation and after committing such irresponsible acts during duty hours on so many occasions, the petitioner does not deserve his retention in the CRPF. 8. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed as such. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 21.5.2008 Prabodh