In a writ petition challenging departmental proceedings leading to removal from the post of Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force, the Court examined allegations regarding the number of charges and the inquiry officer's power to recommend punishment, dismissing the petition on 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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3574 of 2018
======================================================
Ajit Kumar Singh, S/o Late tribeni Singh, R/o Vill-Mahuali, P.O.-Mahuli, P.S.-Ara Muffail, District-Ara at Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Adv. For the UOI : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey Sr. C.G.C. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, C.G.C.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-12-2023
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for Union of India.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3574 of 2018 dt.19-12-2023 2/7
Reserve Police Force, Muzaffarpur annexed as Annexure-2 and lastly to quash the Revisional Order dated 10.02.2017 issued by the Inspector General of Police, Bihar Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, Patna annexed as Annexure-3 and further prayer has been made to direct the respondent to re-instate the petitioner on the post of Constable (G.D.) with all his consequential benefits.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3574 of 2018 dt.19-12-2023 3/7
the said movement order was not given to the petitioner, but he was only orally informed about his transfer and movement order. Counsel also submits that upon being confirmed about his transfer, the petitioner did all the formalities i.e. deposit of riffle, mess clearance etc. Counsel further submits that the petitioner went to his native place after proper information to his officials from where, he was suffering from medical problems and became sick and after that, he was advised for rest by the Doctor under whom he was under treatment. Counsel submits that on 29.03.2016, when the petitioner was going to submit his joining, he was kidnapped from Muzaffarpur and in this regard, wife of the petitioner had submitted an application before S.H.O. Delha P.S., Gaya which was registered as Delha P.S. Case No. 68/2016 dated 02.04.2016 u/s 363, 365,34 of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter, the police started searching the petitioner and recovered the petitioner from Harka village under Minapur P.S. Muzaffarpur on 02.04.2016 itself.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3574 of 2018 dt.19-12-2023 4/7
treatment, the petitioner was allowed to resume his duties and submitted his joining at Muzaffarpur. Counsel further submits that on 09.05.2016, the petitioner had received memo of charge for the purpose of initiation of departmental proceeding in which two charges have been framed against the petitioner. The first charge against the petitioner was that he had disobey the movement order and left the group center without informing the concerned authorities. Counsel submits that on 26.05.2016, the petitioner responded and in the departmental proceeding, he has to appear before Assistant Commandant for inquiry where the Presenting Officer was also appointed. Counsel further submits that after departmental proceeding, the inquiry report was submitted and a copy of the inquiry report had been served upon him and the petitioner has again requested for sanction of earned leave for 13 days to submit his response with certain documents, but time was not granted and the inquiry was started on two charges, but the inquiry officers’ finding has come on three charges and finally, the inquiry officer had found petitioner guilty for the charges leveled against him and recommended for punishment u/s 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act 1949 read with Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rule 1955. Counsel submits that the Commandant, Group
Patna High Court CWJC No.3574 of 2018 dt.19-12-2023 5/7
Center, Central Reserve Police Force, Muzaffarpur issued the final order on 06.10.2016 by virtue of which the petitioner was removed from the post of Constable against which he has preferred appeal and his appeal was also rejected vide order dated 28.11.2016 by the Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Group Center, Central Reserve Police Force, Jhapha, Muzaffarpur and his revision petition was also dismissed vide order dated 10.02.2017 by the Inspector General of Police, Bihar Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, Patna and the original and appellate order has been affirmed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3574 of 2018 dt.19-12-2023 6/7
petitioner has only liberty to raise the points of law, if any. Counsel also submits that the petitioner has raised two legal points in his writ petition viz, the first point that the petitioner has raised is that in the charge memo, there were two charges whereas, finding has come on three charges in the inquiry report and the second point that the petitioner has raised that the Inquiry Officer has crossed his jurisdiction and recommended the punishment which he ought not to do. In this regard, counsel for the Union submits that the specific pleading has been made in paragraph nos. 31 and 32 of the counter affidavit that the charge memo dated 09.05.2016 containing three charges against the petitioner, therefore, this point raised by the petitioner that only two charges are their in the memo, but inquiry report has considered three charges, is not correct and therefore, may not be accepted.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3574 of 2018 dt.19-12-2023 7/7
Annexures, viz, the first is charge memo dated 09.05.2016 which is annexed as Annexure-R/16 of the counter affidavit by which it transpires that there are in total three charges alleged against the delinquent/petitioner and the second is the inquiry report dated 19.09.2016 which is annexed as Annexure-9 and upon perusal of the inquiry report, it transpires to this Court that recommendation of punishment has not been made. As such, the points raised by the petitioner are not entertainable.
Divyansh/-
| AFR/NAFR | |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | |
| Uploading Date | 21-12-2023 |
| Transmission Date |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can challenge departmental proceedings where the charge memo alleged two charges but the inquiry report considered three.
Whether an inquiry officer possesses the legal power to recommend punishment in an inquiry report.
Whether the High Court should interfere in departmental orders where concurred findings of fact exist and procedural requirements were met.
Ajit Kumar Singh
The Union Of India through the Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, C.G.O. Complex, New Delhi
The Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, C.G.O. Complex New Delhi
The Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Bihar, Sector, Ashiana Mod, Patna
The Deputy Inspector General of Plice, Group Center, Central Reserve Police Force Muzaffarpur
The Commandant, Group Center, Central Reserve Police Force, Muzaffarpur
DR. ANSHUMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
