IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL No.430 OF 2016 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. R.K. APPA SON OF LATE YARALAKKAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS VITTALAPURA CHIKKADALAVATTA POST MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572127.
….APPELLANT (BY SRI. K. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS M.H.A. NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003.
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE SOUTHERN SECTOR CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE ROAD NO.10C NEAR MLA /MP COLONY JUBILEE HILLS HYDERABAD-500033.
TELANGANA STATE.
4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE GROUP CENTER YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560 064.
5. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE RANGE HEAD QUARTERS YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560 064.
6. THE COMMANDANT 77 BATTALION, CRPF POONAMALLEE CHENNAI-56 TAMIL NADU.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.R. SHOWRI, CGS FOR RESPONDENT) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.56528/2015 DATED 06/01/2016.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.01.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 56528 of 2015 by which the petition was dismissed, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. The petitioner who was working as Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (for short ‘CRPF’) filed the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash orders dated 11.10.2014 bearing No.P.VIII-8/2014-77-EC-II, order dated 11.12.2014 bearing No.R.XIII-14/2014-EC.3, and order dated 01.11.2015 bearing No.R.XIII-20/2015-Adm-7 passed by respondents No.6, 5 and 3 respectively and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back into the post held by him with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits, including arrears of salary from the date of compulsory retirement till the date of his retirement.
3. The petitioner states that he was appointed as Constable on 19.10.1991 in the CRPF by the third respondent. He has unblemished service record. While he was on duty on 26.01.2006 due to Gas Cylinder explosion he suffered injuries to his both legs. Both his legs were burnt from the bottom to thigh. In the year 2008, the petitioner was transferred to Ajmer, Rajasthan. On 16.01.2009, the Departmental Rehabilitation Board directed to assign only light duties to the petitioner till he is declared fit for other duties. In December 2013, the petitioner was transferred from GC 1, Ajmer to 83G Battalion in Tamil Nadu. In February 2014, he was transferred from 83G Battalion at Avadi, Tamil Nadu. On 17.02.2014, movement order was issued to the petitioner to report to duty at 77G Battalion. On 29.04.2014, the Unit Head called the petitioner for deputing him to Andaman and Nicobar island for discharging constable duties during Parliament Election. The petitioner, due to his health condition requested for exemption from going to Andaman and Nicobar islands. The petitioner was taken to 6th respondent, before whom the petitioner explained his health condition and requested for exemption from deputing him to Andaman and Nicobar islands.
4. The petitioner states that, on 17.06.2014, a memorandum was issued to the petitioner enclosing Article of charges alleging that the petitioner refused to receive the movement order and used abusive language against the Commandant 77 BN and others which is prejudicial to discipline of the Force and amounts to unbecoming of a member of the Force. The petitioner submitted his reply to the respondents. Not being satisfied with his reply, the 6th respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer Sri.B.L.K.Pillai second in Commandant, as the Enquiring Authority. the enquiring authority on holding enquiry submitted his report on 22.09.2014 holding that the charge leveled against the petitioner as proved. The 6th respondent-Disciplinary Authority by order dated 22.09.2014 imposed punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner-appellant. Against which, the petitioner-appellant preferred an appeal as also revision which were dismissed by orders dated 11.12.2014 and 01.11.2015 respectively. Aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate authority and Revisional Authority, the petitioner-appellant filed the present writ petition.
5. The petitioner contended in the writ petition among other grounds that the charge of indiscipline and insubordination has not been established by the respondents by producing sufficient evidence. The learned Single Judge by order dated 06.01.2016 dismissed the writ petition relying upon the principles laid down by the Apex Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is in appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the appeal papers.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge committed an error in dismissing the writ petition without looking into or examining the grounds urged by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner- appellant had not abused any of his higher officers much less the 6th respondent. When the petitioner was informed that he was deputed to Andaman and Nicobar for election duties, he tried to explain his health condition and requested for exemption from deputation, which was taken as abuse and charge sheet was issued. There is no evidence on record to prove the charge. He further contends that the punishment of compulsory retirement is disproportionate to alleged gravity of charge. The charge alleged against the petitioner is false and the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the same. Hence requests for allowing the appeal.
8. Per contra, learned Central Government Standing counsel appearing for the respondents would support the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the petitioner being in the disciplined Police Force could not have ventured to abuse his official superior and that too when he was asked to attend constable duties at Andaman and Nicobar on election duties. Thus prays for dismissal of the appeal.
9. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is neither perverse nor erroneous warranting interference. In a matter like this, that the order passed on the basis of the finding in the Departmental enquiry, the scope under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very much limited. It is not the case of the appellant-petitioner that the orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported in (1999) 1 SCC 759 APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL v/s A.K.CHOPRA at paragraphs 16 and 17 has held as follows:
“16. The High Court appears to have over- looked the settled position that in departmental proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority is the sole Judge of facts and in case an appeal is presented to the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority has also the power/and jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion, on facts, being the sole fact finding authorities. Once findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are recorded, the High Court in Writ Jurisdiction may not normally interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. Since, the High Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority, over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court cannot normally speaking substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities. Even insofar as imposition of penalty or punishment is concerned, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the Disciplinary or the Departmental Appellate Authority, is either impermissible or such that it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should not normally substitute its own opinion and impose some other punishment or penalty. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, it appears, ignored the well- settled principle that even though Judicial Review of administrative action must remain flexible and its dimension not closed, yet the Court in exercise of the power of judicial review is not concerned with the correctness of the findings of fact on the basis of which the orders are made so long as those findings are reasonably supported by evidence and have been arrived at through proceedings which cannot be faulted with for procedural illegalities or irregularities which vitiate the process by which the decision was arrived at. Judicial Review, it must be remembered, is directed not against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision-making process. Lord Hailsham in Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans, observed :
“The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches, on a matter which it is authorized by law to decide for itself, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court.”
17. Judicial Review, not being an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was arrived at, the Court while exercising the power of Judicial Review, must remain conscious of the fact that if the decision has been arrived at by the Administrative Authority after following the principles established by law and the rules of natural justice and the individual has received a fair treatment to meet the case against him, the Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Administrative Authority on a matter which fell squarely within the sphere of jurisdiction of that authority.”
Keeping in mind the above principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the case of the appellant will have to be considered.
10. The charge alleged against the petitioner is that while handing over the movement order to the petitioner, deputing him to Andaman and Nicobar islands for discharging Constable duties during the Parliamentary election period, he refused to receive the movement order and used abusive language against the person who went to serve and also against others which is prejudicial to discipline of the Force and act of unbecoming of a member of the Force. The petitioner is working in a discipline Central Reserve Police Force. Such a Disciplined Force would not tolerate any type of misconduct by its members. It is the case of the petitioner that due to injuries suffered by him to his legs, he would not be in a position to discharge Constable duty and there is a direction to assign light duties to him due to his health condition. But at the same time, when Mr.Gyarsilal, Constable came to serve the movement order, there was no occasion for the appellant-petitioner to abuse him and abuse his superior officers. The said Mr.Gyarsi Lal in his statement as P.W.4 has narrated what has happened on the day when he went to serve the movement order and what had happened before the Commandant. The relevant portion of statement of Mr.Gyarsi Lal is to the following effect:
“During the briefing of Commandant/77, No.911163521 CT/GD R K Appa came to stand-at-ease position from attention position without giving any orders by anyone present in the Commandant’s office and argued with Commandant/77 in a loud voice. No.911163521 CT/GD R.K. Appa told to Commandant that I will not go to D/77 Bn, Coimbatore on attachment duty and I want to proceed on discharge from service with immediate effect. Meantime SI(A) ordered him to come attention position but he refused to obey the orders. Thereafter, Commandant told him to talk with him in attention position and talk in low voice but No.911163521 CT/GD R.K.Appa refused to obey the orders of Commandant. Then Commandant briefed to proceed on VRS as you have completed 20 years of service. In turn, No.911163521 CT/GD R.K.Appa said he wants to proceed on discharge from service with immediate effect and don’t want to go on VRS. Again briefed by Commandant but he never listened the words of Commandant.”
11. Further P.W.7-B.K.Pande, Constable in his statement has deposed as follows:
………………..
………………..
“On his reporting at Unit HQr, he said he has been called by Commandant and as such he wanted to meet Commandant. I informed this to Adjutant/77 Bn and he told me to produce No.911163521 CT/GD R.K.Appa was marched before the Commandant in my presence by BHM as per procedure. During the interview No.911163521 CT/GD R.K.Appa said that he wants to get treatment from Delhi as he was earlier treated there for some burn injuries. Then Commandant told him that in Chennai too there are super speciality hospitals in which treatment is available and told him to avail treatment at Chennai. But, No.911163521 CT/GD R.K.Appa suddenly opposed for treatment in Chennai and made argument with Commandant and talked in a loud voice with an indiscipline way.”
12. The allegation of abusing the superior officer, by which the petitioner showed indiscipline is proved by cogent evidence on record. For proved misconduct of abusing superior officers in a Disciplined Force would certainly warrant major punishment. But for proved misconduct against the petitioner, the respondents instead of removing or dismissing the petitioner, imposed lesser punishment of compulsory retirement. The imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement would save the service of the petitioner and would be entitled for consequential retirement benefits. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is not disproportionate to the gravity of charges alleged against the petitioner. Even though there was no necessity to go into the evidence, as the counsel for the appellant argued that there is no evidence, just to find out the evidence on record, we have gone through the evidence. The Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority while passing the orders have looked into the material on record and have passed detailed orders. Every opportunity at every stage of the enquiry has been afforded to the appellant- petitioner. The Enquiry against the petitioner is initiated under Rule 27 of the CRPF rules. Accordingly, the petitioner is imposed with penalty of compulsory retirement based on the proved misconduct of abusing his official superiors. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge who has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v/s P.GUANSEKHARAN wherein scope of interference by the High Court in disciplinary enquiry is explained. No merit in the appeal and accordingly, this petition is dismissed as devoid of merit.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms