In CM No.6057-C of 2012-PUNJ HC- P&H HC upholds punishment of dismissal imposed on CRPF constable for misbehaving with senior lady official under influence of liquor
Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi [21-03-2023]

Read Order: HIRA LAL VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Mansimran Kaur

Chandigarh, May 7, 2023: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a Regular Second Appeal while upholding the order of dismissal imposed upon a CRPF constable who misbehaved with a senior lady official and that too, under the influence of liquor.

 A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi dismissed the instant revision petition by observing that no ground was made out for interference by this Court in the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, as no perversity was pointed out either on facts or on law. 

Factual matrix of the case was such that the appellant-plaintiff was recruited as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force. In the year 1999, a chargesheet was issued to the appellant-plaintiff under the CRPF Act alleging two allegations. The first allegation alleged in the charge-sheet was that while working as Constable, he misbehaved with Sub Inspector/Steno Shobha while sitting in a recreation room in the mess during the lunchtime so as to waive his hand which amounted to indecent gesture towards a senior lady official. The second allegation alleged was that he was under the influence of the liquor at the relevant time while present in the mess area, which is also not permissible to the members of the disciplinary force and that too, during the duty hours.

The enquiry was conducted and both the allegations were proved against the appellant-plaintiff by the enquiry officer. Rather the allegation of consumption of liquor during the duty hours and being under the influence of the same was accepted by the appellant-plaintiff. Keeping in view the said admission and the finding of the enquiry officer, an order dismissing the appellant from service was passed by the competent authority. 

Even the appeal and the revision petition filed against the order of punishment were also dismissed and feeling aggrieved against the orders of the authorities imposing punishment and dismissal of appeal and revision, the appellant availed remedy of Civil Suit to challenge the order of punishment as well as orders dismissing his appeal and revision. The Civil Court vide judgment and decree  held that once the procedure under Section 11 of the CRPF Act was initiated for imposing the minor punishment, the major punishment could not have been imposed upon the appellant and suit was decreed. 

Aggrieved against the said decision, Union of India filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Court which came to be decided vide judgment and decree dated May 28, 2011. The Lower Appellate Court held that under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, the major punishment can also be imposed after the charges are proved. The judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal.

After considering the submissions from both the sides, the Court noted  that the arguments which have been raised by learned counsel for the appellant in the present appeal is that once the proceedings were initiated under Section 11 of the CRPF Act for imposing the minor punishment, major punishment could not have been inflicted as Section 11 (1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 does not give the power to impose major punishment. Reliance was also placed on the judgment in  Union of India and others Vs. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat. 

In view of the above, the Court opined that counsel for the appellant was not able to distinguish the said judgment so as to be made applicable upon the facts and circumstances of the present case upon the appellant.

Even otherwise also, no perversity is pointed out in the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court by the learned counsel for the appellant either on facts or on law so as to require any interference by this Court. 

The appellant was  a member of the disciplinary force. The allegations against the appellant were  for misbehaving with a senior lady official. Further allegation was  that at the time of said misbehaviour, the appellant was under the influence of the liquor and that too, during the duty hours. 

“The member of the disciplinary force cannot act in a manner in which the appellant had acted even if there was no other blot in the service career of the appellant but misbehaving with a senior lady official and that too, under the influence of liquor is to be dealt with in a stringent manner so as to set an example for others. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed upon the appellant is disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved, the Court noted. 

Reliance at this stage was placed on the case of Anil Kumar Upadhyay Vs. The Director General, SSB and others, wherein it was held  that a member of the disciplined force is expected to follow the rules, have control over his mind and passion, guard his instincts and feelings and not allow his feelings to fly in a fancy. 

Keeping in view the above, the Court at the outset observed that no ground was made out for interference by this Court in the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, as no perversity was pointed out either on facts or on law. Hence, the appeal was accordingly dismissed.