Rajasthan High Court Calls CRPF's Dismissal Of Employee For Consuming Alcohol, Misbehaving With Colleagues 'Autocratic'

The Rajasthan High Court has termed the dismissal of a CRPF employee, who was serving as a Dhobi, for consuming alcohol and misbehaving with colleagues as "shockingly disproportionate" to the misconduct and contrary to the provisions of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (CRPF Act).

“There is no charge of committing more heinous offence against the petitioner and when the petitioner is charged for less heinous offence then how can one presume that for less heinous offence a person be penalized in a manner that he has to lose his job. A termination or removal is always treated as major penalty and it can be awarded only when there is a grave misconduct.”

Justice Ashok Kumar Jain, while noting that the employee had not been given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself before his dismissal, observed that being a disciplined force did not mean that an employee could be denied a fair hearing or an opportunity to present his defence during disciplinary proceedings.

The Court held that the authorities had acted in a "hurried" and "autocratic" manner, amounting to a gross misuse of power, and set aside the dismissal order while directing the employee's reinstatement with consequential benefits.

For context, the petitioner was working with CRPF as a Dhobi when a complaint was made against him that he consumed alcohol while on duty and misbehaved with colleagues. The petitioner was found guilty under Section 10(n) of the Act, and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of 10 days in quarter guards.

During this imprisonment, he was served a show cause notice, with a requirement to submit a reply the very next day. On account of being imprisoned, since the petitioner was not able to submit any response, he was suspended from service and eventually dismissed. Against this action of the respondent, the present petition was filed.

While arguing violation of the principles of natural justice, it was the case of the petitioner that neither he was provided the statement of witnesses, nor given an opportunity of hearing.

Further, it was submitted that the concerned medical report did not even reflect any sign of alcohol consumption on part of the petitioner. The petitioner also argued that the dismissal was highly disproportionate to the misconduct.

After hearing the contentions, the Court observed that the punishment was highly disproportionate to the misconduct and also violative of the Act since the petitioner was found guilty of a less heinous offence.

“…the respondents have awarded sentence of dismissal from service, which is an economic death of an individual.”

Furthermore, the Court perused the timeline in the matter, and opined that the process adopted by the Commandant was a hurried one, reflecting that he was in a hurry to terminate the petitioner, without providing any sufficient opportunity of hearing to him, especially when the medical report did not support the case of the respondents.

“The entire sequence of events and the material along with the provision as referred hereinabove indicate that without giving a proper opportunity in defending himself an order of dismissal of service has been passed against the petitioner…The petitioner was in custody on date of service of notice and ultimately no reply has been filed, which is sufficient to demonstrate that no opportunity of hearing was granted.”

Accordingly, the order of dismissal was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated.

For Petitioners: Mr. Tanmay Dhand with Mr. Suraj Dixit & Mr. Sumit Sharma

For Respondents: Mr. Rakesh Choudhary