LPA No. 187 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 187 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 21, 2011 Davinder Singh …Appellant Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Anil Kumar Gahlawat, Central Govt. Counsel for the respondents 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 06.07.2009, rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the decision of Additional DIGP, (Group Centre) CRPF, Jalandhar, rendered on 26.04.2005 (P-1), dismissing the appellant from service did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The learned Single Judge has further upheld the order dated 14.06.2005 (P-3), passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing his appeal. 2. It is appropriate to mention that the appellant was charged with the acts of misconduct in his capacity as a Member of the Force. The first charge was that he threatened to shoot and kill Sh. Subedar Major Gurnam of GC, CRPF, JDR LPA No. 187 of 2010 (O&M) -2- on 25.12.2004, at about 1735 hours, which is a misconduct under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 (for brevity 'the Act') read with Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955 (for brevity 'the Rules'). The other charge against the appellant was that while functioning as Constable/ GD, he consumed alcohol on 25.12.2004 at about 1735 hours while on duty. It has not been disputed that both the charges stand proved after thorough inquiry in which the appellant was afforded full opportunity and the principles of natural justice were fully complied with. On consideration of the inquiry report, Additional DIGP, (Group Centre) CRPF, Jalandhar passed an order dismissing the appellant from service. Even his appeal has been rejected. 3. The learned Single Judge rejected the arguments that the punishment of removal was not within the sweep of Section 11(1) of the Act. By placing reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. Gulam Mohd. Bhat AIR 2005 SC 4289, the learned Single Judge has concluded that Section 11(1) of the Act did not deal only with the minor punishment because Section expressly states that those minor punishment may be awarded in lieu of, or in addition to suspension or dismissal. The use of words 'in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal' appearing in sub Section 11(1) of the Act before clauses (a) to (e) would show that the authorities mentioned therein were fully empower to award punishment of dismissal or suspension LPA No. 187 of 2010 (O&M) -3- to a member of the force who has found guilty and in addition thereto, the minor punishment listed at item No. (a) to (e) may also be awarded. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Gulam Mohd. Bhat's case (supra) has further opined that in any event, Section 11(1) makes an express reference to Rule made under the Act under which action can be taken. Rule 27 of the Rules clearly permits removal by the competent Authority. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that once an Act of such a magnitude has been committed by the appellant, no sympathy would be warranted. The appellant has not only aimed his gun at his superior but he was also under the influence of liquor. Therefore, we are of the view that in the absence of any defect in holding of inquiry, the punishment order cannot be tinkered with. The appeal does not merit admission and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed . (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) JUDGE April 21, 2011 Atul