Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ARVIND KUMAR CONSTABLE NO. 892332636 versus COMMANDENT CENTRAL INSUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Arvind Kumar Constable No. 892332636 v. Commandent Central Insustrial Security Force & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 463 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9389 (11 May 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 32

Special Appeal No. 463 of 2006

Arvind Kumar Vs. Commandant Central Industrial Security Force, 10th Res. Bn. Ghaziabad. U.P. and others

******

Hon. S.Rafat Alam, J.

Hon. Sudhir Agarwal, J.

This intra Court appeal, under the Rules of the Court, arises from the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court dated 9.3.2006 dismissing the appellant's writ petition against the order of his removal from service.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.

It appears that the appellant-petitioner was working as

Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force and at the relevant time he was deployed with Company No.102, which was assigned the work to look after the internal security and V.I.P. security duties at New Delhi and was stationed at Vijay Ghat. However, on 21.5.2000 at about 3.30 PM the said Company was summoned forthwith for maintaining the internal security of Dariya Ganj Police Station. When the Company reached Dariya Ganj Police Station, its Members/Jawans were asked to fall in but the petitioner and another Head Constable H.S.Negi were found missing.  When the search was made they were found near the Bus in an intoxicated state. The appellant was not even in a position to fall in and thus found unfit for duty at that stage. He was accordingly sent for medical examination and when he was being taken for medical examination, he made efforts to flee at the road crossing taking the advantage of red light. However, he was over powered by other members of the Company and was taken to the Hospital. In the Hospital also he created scene and abused the officials and managed to disappear and thus deserted his services. Thereafter, he reported for duty only on 25.5.2005 with some medical certificate. For the aforesaid lapses and misconduct he was immediately placed under suspension and was served with charge sheet. Consequently a regular departmental proceeding was held wherein charges having been proved, he was removed from service by the disciplinary authority. The order of removal has also been upheld in the appeal and revision vide orders dated 7.3.2002 and 22.9.2002 respectively.

Before the Hon'ble Single Judge, the only contention appears to have been raised was in respect of quantum of punishment and before us also the learned counsel for the petitioner appellant submitted that the punishment imposed upon the appellant is harsh & excessive, therefore, the same is liable to be reduced. We do not find any force in the aforesaid submission. The petitioner appellant was working in a para military force where strict discipline, fitness and alertness are essential to be maintained. The conduct of the appellant can not be said to satisfy the aforesaid requirement. A member of a disciplined force who is posted at such a sensitive place namely internal security and V.I.P. duty, if found indulging in drinking, abusing the authorities and creating other nuisance, can not be said to be a person fit to be retained in service. Therefore, in our view the punishment imposed upon the petitioner appellant is neither excessive nor harsh nor it can be said that it is not commensurate to the gravity of the misconduct. In Hombe Gowda Education Trust and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others 2006(1) SCC 430 the Apex Court after referring the entire law in respect to the quantum of punishment held that the conduct of abusing higher authorities by an employee is a serious misconduct justifying penalty of dismissal.  Besides in the matter of quantum of punishment the court should not normally interfere unless the punishment is shocking to the conscience of the court, which we do not find in the case in hand.

Moreover it is not disputed that against the order of punishment the appellant has preferred statutory appeal and revision and both the higher authorities have confirmed the entire departmental proceedings and the order of punishment. The scope of judicial review is limited and in the absence of any error apparent on the face of the record vitiating decision making process, this court would not be justified in interfering with the orders of departmental authority imposing punishment upon its employee in respect to the proved misconduct. The record also shows that in past also, the petitioner appellant was punished repeatedly and thereafter when he failed to improve upon himself, and continued to commit misconduct, the punishment impugned in the writ petition has been awarded.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Hon'ble Single Judge. The special appeal therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

11.5.2006

RPD/SKM

Court No. 32

Special Appeal No. 463 of 2006

Arvind Kumar Vs. Commandant Central Industrial Security Force, 10th Res. Bn. Ghaziabad. U.P. and others

******

Hon. S.Rafat Alam, J.

Hon. Sudhir Agarwal, J.

This intra Court appeal, under the Rules of the Court, arises from the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court dated 9.3.2006 dismissing the appellant's writ petition against the order of his removal from service.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.

It appears that the appellant-petitioner was working as

Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force and at the relevant time he was deployed with Company No.102, which was assigned the work to look after the internal security and V.I.P. security duties at New Delhi and was stationed at Vijay Ghat. However, on 21.5.2000 at about 3.30 PM the said Company was summoned forthwith for maintaining the internal security of Dariya Ganj Police Station. When the Company reached Dariya Ganj Police Station, its Members/Jawans were asked to fall in but the petitioner and another Head Constable H.S.Negi were found missing.  When the search was made they were found near the Bus in an intoxicated state. The appellant was not even in a position to fall in and thus found unfit for duty at that stage. He was accordingly sent for medical examination and when he was being taken for medical examination, he made efforts to flee at the road crossing taking the advantage of red light. However, he was over powered by other members of the Company and was taken to the Hospital. In the Hospital also he created scene and abused the officials and managed to disappear and thus deserted his services. Thereafter, he reported for duty only on 25.5.2005 with some medical certificate. For the aforesaid lapses and misconduct he was immediately placed under suspension and was served with charge sheet. Consequently a regular departmental proceeding was held wherein charges having been proved, he was removed from service by the disciplinary authority. The order of removal has also been upheld in the appeal and revision vide orders dated 7.3.2002 and 22.9.2002 respectively.

Before the Hon'ble Single Judge, the only contention appears to have been raised was in respect of quantum of punishment and before us also the learned counsel for the petitioner appellant submitted that the punishment imposed upon the appellant is harsh & excessive, therefore, the same is liable to be reduced. We do not find any force in the aforesaid submission. The petitioner appellant was working in a para military force where strict discipline, fitness and alertness are essential to be maintained. The conduct of the appellant can not be said to satisfy the aforesaid requirement. A member of a disciplined force who is posted at such a sensitive place namely internal security and V.I.P. duty, if found indulging in drinking, abusing the authorities and creating other nuisance, can not be said to be a person fit to be retained in service. Therefore, in our view the punishment imposed upon the petitioner appellant is neither excessive nor harsh nor it can be said that it is not commensurate to the gravity of the misconduct. In Hombe Gowda Education Trust and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others 2006(1) SCC 430 the Apex Court after referring the entire law in respect to the quantum of punishment held that the conduct of abusing higher authorities by an employee is a serious misconduct justifying penalty of dismissal.  Besides in the matter of quantum of punishment the court should not normally interfere unless the punishment is shocking to the conscience of the court, which we do not find in the case in hand.

Moreover it is not disputed that against the order of punishment the appellant has preferred statutory appeal and revision and both the higher authorities have confirmed the entire departmental proceedings and the order of punishment. The scope of judicial review is limited and in the absence of any error apparent on the face of the record vitiating decision making process, this court would not be justified in interfering with the orders of departmental authority imposing punishment upon its employee in respect to the proved misconduct. The record also shows that in past also, the petitioner appellant was punished repeatedly and thereafter when he failed to improve upon himself, and continued to commit misconduct, the punishment impugned in the writ petition has been awarded.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Hon'ble Single Judge. The special appeal therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

11.5.2006

RPD/SKM


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.