Disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner while he was working as Constable under the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). An enquiry as contemplated under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 was conducted by the Deputy Commandant of the Battallion concerned, as entrusted by the 2nd respondent. On the basis of the report of enquiry the 2nd respondent had issued Ext.P11 order dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred appeal against Ext.P11 order before the 3rd respondent under Rule 28, which was also dismissed through Ext.P12. Thereafter the petitioner had approached the 4th respondent in a revision petition. In Ext.P13 order the 4th respondent found that there is no ground existing to interfere with the orders passed by respondents 2 & 3. It is challenging Exts.P11, P12 & P13 this writ petition is filed. The petitioner is seeking consequential relief by way of direction for reinstatement in service with all back wages. An alternative relief for directing respondents 1 to 4 to conduct a fresh enquiry on the basis of Ext.P1, is also sought for.
2. The impugned orders are challenged mainly on the ground that the entire procedure of disciplinary action was violative of principles of natural justice. It is contended that the enquiry was conducted in English language, which the petitioner could not follow. It is also contended that the petitioner was denied of any opportunity to have assistance of any competent person to defend his case. Further allegation is that copies of the documents which were relied on in the enquiry was not furnished to the petitioner. It is also contended that the charges levelled against him were factually incorrect and no relevant materials were examined by the disciplinary authority in order to arrive at a conclusion with respect to the veracity of the allegations. Lastly, it is contended that the petitioner was proceeded against in a malafide manner due to extraneous reasons and the punishment of dismissal from service was only intended to wreck vengeance against him, because of reasons which are not at all material or related to the charges based on which the disciplinary action was initiated.
3. For an appreciation of the contentions, an examination of the sequence of procedure followed in the matter of disciplinary action will be beneficial. The 2nd respondent had issued Ext.P1 Memorandum intimating the petitioner about the proposal to hold an enquiry against him under Rule 27. The Statement of Allegations and Articles of charges specifically framed against the petitioner on two counts were annexed along with Ext.P1 notice, particularly marked 'Article-I' and 'Article-II'. The Deputy Commandant who was entrusted with the enquiry proceedings had questioned the petitioner for recording the plea on 'guilt' or 'non-guilt'. It is evident from Ext.P2 that the petitioner had conceded before the enquiry officer that he had received the Memorandum of Charges along with all its Annexures and that he had understood contents of the Memorandum of charges. To the specific question put to him, the petitioner pleaded not guilty of both the charges framed. Further the petitioner answered that he has no objection in the Deputy Commandant being appointed as the Enquiry Officer. To a specific question the petitioner answered that he does't want to produce any defence witnesses or documents. He further answered that he will produce the same in the civil court. The Enquiry Officer asked a specific question that in which language the petitioner would like to have the disciplinary proceeding conducted. The answer is, “In English language ! I will prefer Malayalam language”. The Enquiry Officer further asked the petitioner whether he wish to avail any person as 'defence assist' during the course of examination of witnesses. The petitioner answered that he do not wish to have any person as 'defence assist'. Evidently the enquiry were proceeded and 4 witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution. By virtue of Ext.P7 notice the petitioner was again requested to submit his written statement citing defence documents on the next hearing date. In Ext.P7 it is mentioned that the statement of the prosecution witnesses were recorded in the presence of the petitioner and the copies were provided to the petitioner. Exhibit P8 is the reply submitted by the petitioner to Ext.P7 notice. Exhibit P8 was furnished in Hindi language. The petitioner had produced its translation in Malayalam as per Ext.P8 (a). Eventhough the petitioner had narrated so many incidents and made allegations against higher officials, nothing is mentioned in Ext.P8 either refuting the charges or raising any objection against the enquiry proceedings. The only statement in Ext.P8 is that the petitioner does not know English and he need an assistant. But in Ext.P8 the petitioner had never mentioned anything about examination of any defence witness or with respect to production of any materials in the enquiry. Thereafter the petitioner had submitted Exts.P9 & P10 representations before the 2nd respondent in which he had narrated many aspects which are not directly connected with the specific charges contained in Ext.P1. It is evident from Ext.P9 that the petitioner had requested for a discharge from service and he has stated that if he is dismissed he will approach the civil court and shall reveal all the facts before the court of law.
4. In Ext.P11 proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent, through which the punishment was imposed, the entire circumstances was considered. It was found that the Central Reserve Police Force is a well disciplined para military force and the very foundation of survival is on the discipline and obedience. It was observed that since the beginning of the departmental proceedings itself the petitioner had disobeyed all lawful/legal orders. It was observed that the petitioner is adamant in nature and crooked mind and is not a fit person in the disciplined force like CRPF. It was observed that the petitioner was found as stigma in the well disciplined uniformed force and in the unit to which the petitioner belongs. Hence finding guilty of the offences committed he was imposed with punishment of dismissal from service as contemplated under Rule 27. Both the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority had concurred on the above aspects.
5. Contention of the petitioner that there was violation of principles of natural justice, cannot be countenanced in view of the procedure followed, as enumerated above. One of the main contention is based on the fact that the enquiry was conducted in a language which is not understandable to the petitioner. The allegation is refuted by the respondents contending that the petitioner is a person having qualification of Matriculation and he had given specific answer before the 2nd respondent, before starting the enquiry, regarding the plea, language of enquiry, personal assistance etc. Evidently the petitioner had conceded to proceed with the enquiry in English language and he had categorically stated that he does not need a 'defence assistant'. It is further evident that the prosecution witnesses were examined in his presence and the statements were furnished to the petitioner. Further he had replied to Ext.P7 notice which was issued in English language. All this would show that the petitioner had never raised any protest against the enquiry being conducted in English language.
6. With respect to providing assistance of any capable person, as observed above, his answer in Ext.P1 was on the negative. It is true that in Ext.P8 the petitioner made such a request. It is pertinent to note that despite specific request for submitting defence witnesses or materials if any proposed, the petitioner had categorically answered that he has no defence materials to be produced. Therefore there is no necessity to provide any assistance in the further proceedings after Ext.P7 notice.
7. Another contention is regarding non-furnishing of copies of materials relied on. Learned counsel for the petitioner had specifically pointed out Rule 27 (3) which insist that, 'when documents are relied upon in support of the charge, they shall be put in evidence as exhibits and the accused shall before he is called upon to make his defence, be allowed to inspect such exhibits'. Evidently the prosecution witnesses were examined in the presence of the petitioner and exhibits were marked at the time of examination. The petitioner had opportunity to see the documents when the petitioner was called upon to make his defence. He had never raised any demand to furnish copies of any such exhibits. Therefore there is no merit in the contention that there occurred violation of procedure contemplated under Rule 27 (3).
8. The petitioner is now raising contention that two specific charges levelled against him are totally unsustainable, because the allegations were factually incorrect. But such a contention never finds a place either in Ext.P8 or in Ext.P9 or in Ext.P10. If the allegations are not factually incorrect, it was left open to the petitioner to have adduced defence evidence to disprove such allegations. He could have resorted to the procedure for calling upon any documents which according to him could have been used as material for refuting the allegations. Having not taken any such steps during the course of disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the allegations are factually incorrect. Further, there is no specific plea raised to the above effect, either before the appellate authority or before the revisional authority. Judicial review exercised by this court in this writ petition which is filed under Article 226 is too limited. This court is not supposed to venture upon a total re- appreciation of the evidence on record or a re-evaluation of the factual matrix. The judicial review need to be confined only to the aspects of illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the conduct of the disciplinary action. Having considered the factual matrix enumerated as above, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner was not successful in establishing any such illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the conduct of the disciplinary action. Nor he could established any material violation of the statutory procedure contemplated.
9. Under the above mentioned circumstances the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
10. After rendering the judgment as above, learned counsel for the petitioner made an appeal to this court to show indulgence in modifying the punishment as 'removal from service' instead of 'dismissal from service'. Attention of this court is drawn to the Explanation contained in Rule 27 (a). It provides that dismissal of a member of the Force precludes him from being re-employed in Government service, while removal of any such member from the Force shall not be a disqualification for any future employment under the Government, other than an employment in the CRPF. He further points out that a removal from the Force is treated as alternate punishment which can be imposed by the very same competent authority, as evidenced from the table of Rule 27. It is not proper or justifiable on the part of this court to make any modification with respect to the nature of the punishment imposed, even on principles of equity, unless specific findings are arrived to the extent that the quantum of punishment imposed is disproportionate. At the same time, this court is of the opinion that considering the age of the petitioner the disability imposed under Rule 27 will cause severe prejudice for him in seeking employment under any other Government service. Hence this court is of the opinion that it is for the authority of the Force to consider the appeal of the petitioner with respect to modification of the punishment from 'dismissal' to 'removal'.
11. If the petitioner prefers any representation before the 1st respondent in this regard, the same shall be considered and appropriate decision shall be taken expeditiously.
AMG Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE True copy P.A. to Judge