IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 OP.No. 27272 of 2000(V) ------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------- K. RAVINDRAN, 50 BN, CRPF, NO.680386404, Ct. DVR., PANAKKEVELIYIL, KALAVANCODAM, SHERTHALLAI, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, KOHIMA. 2. THE COMMNADANT, 50 Bn, CRPF, SHILLONG (MEGHALAYA. 3. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, N.E.S. CRPF, BISHOP COTTON ROAD, SHILLONG, MEGHALAYA. ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ADDL.CGSC SRI.S.PRASANTH, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1TOR4 SRI.P.R.RADHAKRISHNAN, CGC FOR R1 TO 4 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31 /10/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 27272 of 2000 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.45812 OF 2000 IN O.P.NO.27272 OF 2000 DISMISSED. 31.10.2008 SD/ S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT ISSUED BY 1ST CLASS JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE & ASST. COMMANDANT 50 BATTALION, CRPF POLO GROUND, SHILLONG. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.J.II. 1/86-50-EC.II DTD 13/12/1986 ISSUED BY THE R2. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE R1. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 28.1.1988 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE W.A.NO.1349/91 DTD 13.10.1999. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.R.XIII.32/99-ADM-I (NES) DATED 2.5.2000 ISSUED BY R4. R1'S EXIBITS EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.10.1991 IN O.P.NO.1496/1988 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No. 27272 OF 2000 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner was a driver attached to the 50 Bn, CRPF, Shillong, Meghalaya. He was subjected to court martial proceedings for the following offences: 1. The petitioner absented himself on 6.8.86 at about 0900 hrs from the Spl Train in which he was travelling at Danapur(Bihar) without any one's permission and thus, committed an offence under Section 10(m) of CRPF Act. 2. The petitioner left vehicle CRPF -16 Regd. No.JKB-1224 One Tone 4 x 4 unattended in KF of the Train without handing over the charge of the said vehicle to anyone and thus committed an offence under section 10 (m) of CRPF Act of 1949. In the Court martial proceedings, the petitioner pleaded guilty and taking into account the satisfactory completion of 18 years of his service, a lenient view was taken and the punishment of imprisonment till rising of the Court was imposed on him. Thereafter, the appointing authority, initiating disciplinary proceedings under Section 12(1) of CRPF Act, dismissed the O.P.No.27272/2000 2 petitioner from service by Ext.P2 order. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by Ext.P4 order. His further revision was also dismissed by Ext.P5. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P2, P4 and P6 orders. The petitioner submits that since the offence for which the petitioner was punished by Ext.P1 judgment by court martial proceedings was not serious enough to warrant the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner, therefore submits that he should be reinstated in service, quashing Exts.P2, P4 and P6. 2. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner. 3. Section 12(1) of the CRPF Act stipulates that every person sentenced, under the CRPF Act 1949, to imprisonment may be dismissed from service. The petitioner has been sentenced to imprisonment, although for a day cannot now be disputed. Therefore, Section 12(1) of the Act is squarely attracted. The offences for which he was convicted does not appear to be trivial. In fact for a driver of the CRPF, the same are certainly serious. Defence personnel are expected to show better devotion to duty than their counter parts in Civil Services. Unless very strict discipline is enforced in Forces, the very effectiveness of the Forces would be under threat. O.P.No.27272/2000 3 Therefore, I am of opinion that such misconducts/offence have to be viewed very seriously, although in Civil Services the very same offence may attract only lesser punishment. The proportionality of punishment has to be considered taking into account such facts also. 4. The petitioner challenges constitutional validity of Section 12(1) also. I do not find anything arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of the provisions of the Constitution in Section 12(1). That being so, the challenge against the constitutional validity of Section 12(1) also is without any merit. In view of the above findings, I do not find any merit in this original petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.No.27272/2000 4