The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ appeal against the dismissal of a CRPF constable accused of assaulting his superior officer. The court held that physical assault in a disciplined force justifies dismissal and is not a disproportionate penalty.
Writ petition dismissed. Dismissal penalty upheld.
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.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010006502017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA 24/2018
1:MANNA SUKLABAIDYA
R/O TULARGRAM PART-II, P.O. SONAIMUKH, P.S. SONAI, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN 788119
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-3
3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CRPF MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS GOVT. OF INDIA SPECIAL SECTOR RAIPUR CHATTISGARH
4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CRPF MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS GOVT. OF INDIA SPECIAL SECTOR BILASPUR P.O. BHORNI PIN 495112
Page No.# 2/4
5:THE COMMANDANT 180 BATALLION CRPF C/O 56 APO TRAL PULWAMA JAMMU AND KASHMIR PIN 934180
6:THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT 18O BATALLION CRPF C/O 56 APO TRAL PULWAMA JAMMU AND KASHMIR PIN 93418
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M H LASKAR
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJIT SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
4.6.2018 (Ajit Singh, CJ)
Mr. MH Laskar and Mr. S Roy, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. S Sarma, learned senior panel counsel, Government of India, for the respondents.
This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has dismissed appellant’s WP(C) No.1701/2016.
On 16.1.2006, the appellant was appointed as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force. He, however, on 10.8.2011, not only slapped, but also gave fist blows to his superior officer, when the later ordered him to take the Morcha duty of one suspended Sepoy. He was, therefore, subjected to an enquiry under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force
Page No.# 3/4
Regulation, 1955 on the following charge:-
That appellant was deputed on patrolling duty on 10.8.2011 from 8 PM to 10 PM. On his return to camp, after performing his duty, the Company Hawaldar Major ordered him to take the Morcha duty of one suspended Sepoy Sanjay Kumar Yadav, but he disobeyed the order and got agitated. Also upon instigation by another suspended Havildar P.R.Boro, the appellant went near the bed of Company Hawaldar Major and joining hands with Sanjay Kumar Yadav and two other suspended Sepoys, assaulted Company Hawaldar Major C Kuppon with slap and fist blows. This act of appellant was punishable under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Regulation, 1955.
On enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found the aforesaid charge proved against the appellant. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority also agreed with the findings of Enquiry Officer and vide order dated 26.12.2011 imposed a penalty of his dismissal from service. Aggrieved, the appellant first filed revision, which was dismissed, vide order dated 6.5.2012, and then appeal, which too was dismissed by the appellate authority, vide order dated 12.5.2014. Undeterred, the appellant filed an application for his re-instatement, which was again rejected by the Additional Inspector General of Police, vide order dated 2.6.2015. The appellant finally filed WP(C) No.1701/2016 and mainly submitted that the punishment imposed upon him was shockingly disproportionate to the charge and, therefore, it be quashed. But the learned Single Judge disagreed with him and dismissed his writ petition by the impugned order. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. And vide order dated 15.2.2018, the appeal was admitted only to examine whether the punishment imposed to the appellant is shockingly disproportionate.
As seen above, the charge against the appellant of slapping and giving fist blows to his superior officer merely because he was ordered by the superior officer to take the Morcha duty of one suspended Sepoy Sanjay Kumar Yadav has been proved. The appellant, being in a disciplined force, is, thus, guilty of committing a serious misconduct. In Mahindra and Mahindra Limited vs. N.B. Narawade, (2005) 3 SCC 134, the Supreme Court, relying upon its earlier decisions rendered in Orissa Cement Limited vs. Adikanda Sahu, (1960) 1 LLJ 518 (SC) and New Shorrock Mills vs. Maheshbhai T. Rao, (1996) 6 SCC 590, has held that punishment of dismissal for using of abusive language was not disproportionate. This being the legal position, the act of appellant is much more grave than using of abusive language.
Page No.# 4/4
The appellant’s act of slapping and giving fist blows to his superior officer in a disciplined force like Central Reserve Police Force cannot be termed to be an indiscipline calling for lesser punishment. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/Sd/JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the dismissal penalty imposed on a CRPF constable for assaulting a superior officer was shockingly disproportionate.
Whether a dismissed excise employee can claim re-instatement in a service dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mahindra and Mahindra Limited vs. N.B. NarawadeApplied¶29
Mahindra and Mahindra Limited vs. N.B. Narawade, (2005) 3 SCC 134 · Who else cites this
Orissa Cement Limited vs. Adikanda SahuReferred¶29
Orissa Cement Limited vs. Adikanda Sahu, (1960) 1 LLJ 518 (SC)
New Shorrock Mills vs. Maheshbhai T. RaoReferred¶29
New Shorrock Mills vs. Maheshbhai T. Rao, (1996) 6 SCC 590 · Who else cites this
Manna Suklabaidya
The Union of India
Ajit Singh
Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
