Pensioner Mithlesh Kumar challenged his 1979 dismissal and subsequent rejections of appeals based on lack of hearing. Upholding Rule 27(cc)(ii) dispensation, the court found enquiry impracticable due to insurrection and dismissed the petition.
The petition challenging the dismissal order and subsequent orders was dismissed as being devoid of merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
Reserved on: 22.03.2016 Date of decision: 18.05.2016
IN THE MATTER OF: MITHLESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar Bahl, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate
CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
HIMA KOHLI, J.
III Signal Battalion with the CRPF, has filed the present petition praying inter alia for quashing his dismissal order dated 04.07.1979, passed by the
Deputy Director (Comns.), CRPF as also the orders dated 25.10.2010, 29.11.2010, 11.05.2010 passed by the Director General, CRPF, rejecting his appeal/revision petition.
W.P.(C) 4776/2011
Page 1 of 9
Force (about 1700 in number), held an illegal meeting in the CRPF Camp, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi and took out an unauthorized procession. In the meeting, they decided to abstain from work and paralyse the normal functioning of the Group Centre by systematic disobedience of orders and non-performance of various lawful duties assigned to them. They also made unauthorized collection of funds from the Force personnel.
(b) On 23rd June, 1979, acts of insubordination and misconduct took
place in the morning parade. The revolting members of the Force also abstained from discharging their normal duties despite definite orders directing them to report. Subsequently, they came in a mob, went to the main entrance of the Group Centre raising abusive anti-government slogans. They locked the signal shift bus at the gate after members of the Force travelling in the said bus were forcibly pulled down and threatened them with dire consequences if they tried to move to their place of duty. The mob then rushed to the Signal Centre building, disrupted the system of communication and the staff working on the wireless sets were forced to join the mob and desert their lawful duties. The mob proceeded to the GC
W.P.(C) 4776/2011
Page 2 of 9
office and forced the ministerial staff as well as the superior officers to close the offices in the face of fatal intimidation. The mob then indulged in physical violence against loyal members of the Force and caused injuries to them.
(c) On the next day i.e. 24th June, 1979, the aforesaid members of the Force continued to abstain from their duties, became grossly insubordinate and insolent towards the superior officers and compelled the Commandant of the 1st Signal to come out of his residence after office hours and address
the mob.
(d) During the period from 22nd June to 24th June, 1979, the mob kept the main gate of the Group Centre locked and did not allow any other member of the Force or superior officer to come in or go out in discharge of their duties.
(e) On 25th June, 1979, pursuant to the decision of the higher authorities,
the Army Units accompanied by the First Class Magistrate, reached the Group Centre in the early hours. The Magistrate announced that the said mob of members of the Force were an unlawful assembly and they should disperse immediately and hand over their weapons and ammunitions to the
Page 3 of 9
W.P.(C) 4776/2011
Army. However, the agitators refused to hand over their weapons or to disperse and instead, they adopted a violent posture of confrontation with the Army and fired upon them. In the said milieu, the Army resorted to use
the process, three members of the Force were killed and eight others were injured.
W.P.(C) 4776/2011
Page 4 of 9
petitioner had preferred an appeal, a revision petition and a review petition, which were all rejected by the Appellate/Revisional/Reviewing Authorities. Aggrieved by the non-consideration of his appeal and statutory petition which were pending before respondents since 1987, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad, registered as W.P.(C) 22119/1990. The said petition was disposed of by the High Court of Allahabad vide order dated 06.11.2009, with directions issued to the respondent No.3 (Director General, CRPF) to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s appeal in accordance with law. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the Director General, CRPF had passed a detailed order dated 11.05.2010, holding inter alia that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was just and fair and commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed by him and he did not find any reason to interfere with the said order. It was also observed that the petitioner’s appeal was grossly barred by limitation. This was followed by orders dated 25.10.2010 and 29.11.2010 passed by the office of the Directorate General, CRPF rejecting the petitioner’s review applications.
W.P.(C) 4776/2011
Page 5 of 9
“The petitioner was believed to be the king pin of that rebellion, but a part of the extent of the petitioner’s participation in that rebellion, it is clear that the atmosphere generated by the gross breach of discipline on the part of petitioner and his collaborators had created a situation in which it would have been impossible to hold a formal inquiry into their conduct, we are satisfied that, in the circumstances, it was not reasonably practicable to hold inquiry against the petitioner before dismissing him from the force.”
W.P.(C) 4776/2011
Page 6 of 9
2503/1983, 9622/1983, 1121/1984 were also disposed of with the same orders.
herein, but to several other CRPF personnel.
W.P.(C) 4776/2011
Page 7 of 9
W.P.(C) 4776/2011
Page 8 of 9
with the departmental inquiry and dismissing the petitioner and other delinquent members of the Force, outrightly.
(HIMA KOHLI)
JUDGE
(SUNIL GAUR)
MAY 18, 2016 JUDGE
rkb/ap
W.P.(C) 4776/2011
Page 9 of 9
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing before his dismissal from service.
Whether it was reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry given the magnitude of the rebellion.
Whether the dismissal order under Rule 27(cc)(ii) of the CRPF Rules was justified.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mithlesh Kumar
Union of India
Hima Kohli
Sunil Gaur
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
