Failure To Hold Joint Enquiry Under CRPF Rules Does Not By Itself Vitiate Disciplinary Proceedings: J&K&L High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that Rule 27(d) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, which empowers the disciplinary authority to conduct common proceedings against two or more members of the Force, is merely a directory provision.Observing that since the rule does not confer a vested right upon a delinquent employee to demand a joint enquiry the court held...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that Rule 27(d) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, which empowers the disciplinary authority to conduct common proceedings against two or more members of the Force, is merely a directory provision.
Observing that since the rule does not confer a vested right upon a delinquent employee to demand a joint enquiry the court held that the failure to hold a joint enquiry does not, in and of itself, vitiate the departmental proceedings.
The Court made these observations while hearing an intra-court appeal filed by a former Constable of the CRPF challenging his dismissal from service. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal, while dismissing the appeal, observed,
“.... Rule 27(d) is merely a directory provision. It empowers the disciplinary authority to conduct common proceedings against two or more members of the Force but does not confer a vested right upon the appellant. Consequently, the failure to hold a joint enquiry does not, in and of itself, vitiate the departmental proceedings.”
The Court held that the nature and gravity of the allegations against the appellant were distinct and significantly more serious than those against his colleague.
Background:
The appellant was serving as a Constable in the CRPF. On 31st May 1997 he went to the Family Quarter of SI/GD Jagdish Singh along with another Constable, Rajinder Singh. After consuming liquor, he misbehaved with the Superior Officer at his quarter. On 1st June 1997, he was found absent from night duty as a Guard Marker. When the SO/SI and other officers went to the barrack in search of him, he was found consuming liquor in the living barrack, violating Camp standing orders. He and his colleague assaulted the officers.
The appellant was placed under suspension and a departmental enquiry was ordered. An Assistant Commandant, was appointed as Enquiry Officer and after the conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, and the Commandant imposed the penalty of “Dismissal from Service” with effect from 17th November 1997. The appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, RAF, CRPF, New Delhi was rejected and the revision petition was also dismissed.
The appellant challenged his dismissal before the Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition in leading to an intra-court appeal.
Court's Observation:
The Court first addressed the contention that the enquiry stood vitiated as no Presenting Officer was appointed and the Enquiry Officer himself acted as the Presenting Officer. The Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ram Lakhhan Sharma (2018) 7 SCC 670, wherein the Supreme Court quoted with approval the principles culled out by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Court noted,
“... The failure to appoint a Presenting Officer does not, ipso facto, vitiate the proceedings. Such a challenge can only succeed if the record establishes that the Enquiry Officer stepped into the shoes of the Prosecutor, thereby compromising the requirement of an impartial enquiry.”
After examining the record of the enquiry, the Court found that the Enquiry Officer recorded the statements of witnesses and afforded the opportunity of cross-examination to the appellant which he utilised. The Court held, “After examining the record, we hardly find that the Enquiry Officer has himself acted as Prosecuting Officer.”
The Court then examined the contention regarding joint enquiry under Rule 27(d) of the CRPF Rules, 1955. Rule 27(d)(1) provides that where two or more members of the Force are concerned in any case, the Inspector-General or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding.
The Court held that this provision is merely directory and does not confer any vested right upon the delinquent.
The Court further observed that the charges against the appellant's colleague were distinct. The colleague was merely alleged to have accompanied the appellant to the residence of SI (GD) Jagdish Singh and did not face any charges for unauthorized absence. The Court observed,
“... Evidently, the nature and gravity of the allegations against the appellant were distinct and significantly more serious than those leveled against his colleague, Constable Rajinder Singh. Thus, the contention of the appellant that a joint enquiry was required to be conducted in terms of Rule 27(d) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, is found to be devoid of merit.”
On the contention that the appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, the Court found that the appellant did cross-examine the witnesses, and the contention was negated.
In alignment with the above findings the Court held that the judgment rendered by the Single Judge did not warrant any interference. The appeal was dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Case Title: Rajinder Singh v. Home Secretary to Govt. of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)