Gauhati High Court upholds reinstatement of CRPF personnel

STAFF REPORTER

GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court recently upheld a single bench decision which quashed and set aside the dismissal of a CRPF personnel on the ground that the findings of inquiry officer were not based on any substantial evidence and the said personnel was not given opportunity of being defended.

The charge against the respondent-personnel was that while proceeding on 15 days casual leave from 06.06.2008 onwards, he was found in ossession of 23 live rounds of 5.56 Insas Rifle at the Jammu Railway station when search was taken by the RPF and local police officials of his uggage. Another allegation was leveled that he did not furnish the information to his higher authorities either in 31 Bn or 151 Bn regarding illegal retention of 23 live rounds of 5.56 Insas Rifle.

A departmental enquiry was initiated against the respondent in which the charges were proved against him beyond reasonable doubt. The disciplinary authority vide order dated September 30, 2008 removed the respondent from the service after accepting the findings in the inquiry report. The respondent challenged the order of removal from service before the High Court. The High Court vide judgment and final order dated January 18, 2018 quashed the order by which the respondent was removed from service pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding on the ground that conclusion arrived in the disciplinary proceeding was not based on any relevant evidence.

The Union of India filed an intra-court appeal against the impugned judgment of the single judge bench. The Deputy Solicitor General of India, RKD Choudhury argued before the division bench. that the standard of proof required to bring home the charges in a disciplinary proceeding cannot be equated with that required to bring home the charges in a criminal trial. As per Choudhury, the charges in disciplinary proceedings can be proved by mere preponderance of probabilities. It was his contention that the evidence of six witnesses who were examined during the inquiry, was sufficient to bring home the charges. He stated that the single bench was not justified in re-appreciating the evidence and substituting its own conclusions upon the conclusions drawn in the inquiry report. He urged that the impugned order which is based on re-appreciation of evidence, is liable to be set aside.

The division bench comprising the Chief Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia observed: “It is not in dispute that neither the FIR if any registered after the seizure nor the seizure memo whereby the live rounds were allegedly recovered were proved during the course of enquiry. No documentary evidence was brought on record to prove that the recovered ammunition was taken into possession by the CRPF authorities.”

The court further stated, “ Admittedly, none of these witnesses was present at the time when the seizure was allegedly made from the baggage of the DO at the Jammu Railway station.” It was further pointed by the Court that the statement of the respondent which was treated as his confession, was recorded in Hindi. However, the respondent personnel, who belongs to an interior Boro land tribe of Assam, has only rudimentary knowledge of Hindi. Thus, said the court, the confessional statement could not have been admitted in evidence more so because the respondent was not provided any defence assistance.

The court further stated, “The Commandant, vide order dated 30.09.2008, accepted the findings of the inquiry report without any significant discussion and also placed reliance on the admission made by the Delinquent Officer (DO). It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer were not based on any substantive evidence.”

The Court upheld the judgment and order of the single judge bench which set aside the order of penalty imposed upon the respondent for being based on no evidence and also being tainted by the denial of opportunity of being defended.

Also Read: Extend jurisdiction of food safety: Gauhati High Court

Also Watch: