CRPF Act | Commandant Authorised To Dismiss Personnel For Misconduct, Dismissal & Removal Are Minor Penalties: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act allows the Commandant the discretion to dismiss or remove a member of the force found guilty of misconduct as a penalty. Justice Sanjay Dhar also clarified that under Section 11, dismissal and removal from service are classified as minor punishments."..it is clear that the Commandant is well within his powers to pass an order of dismissal of service of a delinquent CRPF Personnel if he feels that the misconduct is of such a nature as would warrant aforesaid punishment. This can be done by him in exercise of his powers under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act. Dismissal and removal from service are being considered to be minor punishments as per Section 11 of the CRPF Act. These punishments can be inflicted in addition to or in lieu of punishments provided under Clauses (a) to (e) of subsection (1) of Section 11 of the Act." The observations came in a plea centred around a CRPF constable who had challenged his removal from service due to unauthorised absence exceeding ten months. The petitioner, contested his dismissal and the charges framed against him, arguing that the punishment was disproportionate to the alleged offence. He contended that since the charges levelled against him were minor offences under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, the punishment of dismissal, considered a major penalty, was disproportionate to the nature of the charges.The petitioner further maintained that he had been unable to resume duty due to domestic issues and mental distress, a claim countered by the respondents. The petitioner’s counsel stressed that the Disciplinary Authority had not conducted a proper inquiry before imposing such a severe punishment.The court concluded that the petitioner was given several opportunities to present his case and had been served with the memorandum of charges. The petitioner admitted to receiving these communications and expressed his inability to resume duty due to domestic problems in communication. Consequently, the inquiry proceeded in his absence. The petitioner remained absent for more than two years, and the inquiry found that he had absented himself without permission.“The record clearly shows that the petitioner has been served with the memorandum of charges and he has been repeatedly asked by the respondents to participate in the enquiry proceedings that were being conducted at Jammu, the place to which the petitioner belongs. In spite of being a resident of the same locality, the petitioner chose not to appear before the Enquiry Officer, as a result of which, the enquiry was conducted in his absence”, the bench recorded.Citing Union of India vs. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat case 2005 Justice Dhar asserted that Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act empowered the Commandant to award the punishment of dismissal, even for offenses categorized as less heinous under Section 10(m) of the Act.Observing that dismissal and removal from service are considered to be minor punishments as per Section 11, the bench added that these punishments can be inflicted in addition to or in lieu of punishments provided under Clauses (a) to (e) of Section 11(1).Emphasising that the discretion to impose punishment lies with the disciplinary authority, which should align with the nature of the offence committed the bench referred to State of Meghalaya vs. Mecken Singh N. Marak, 2008 and clarified that judicial interference in this discretion is rare, allowed only under exceptional circumstances with well-founded reasons.Terming the unauthorised absence of the petitioner for over 10 months a grave misconduct the bench observed,“The petitioner being a member of CRPF could not overstay without permission. Absence from duty without leave for a member of the Force is a gravest misconduct. Thus, the Disciplinary Authority was right in awarding punishment of removal from service. The punishment awarded against the petitioner is by no reason disproportionate”Thus it dismissed the petition finding it devoid of any merit.Case Title: Jagdish Chander Vs Union Of IndiaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 274Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

CRPF Act | Commandant Authorised To Dismiss Personnel For Misconduct, Dismissal & Removal Are Minor Penalties: J&K High Court

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

Tags