news details |
|
|
| CRPF Cop's dismissal upheld by Division Bench | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Feb 8: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Rajesh Sekhri While upholding the dismissal of CRPF cop, observed that merely because the appellant was only in the second year of his service is no reason to be charitable to him. It must be remembered that the appellant was a member of an Armed Force of the Union in a State which was affected by insurgency. His inability to stop or neutralize the assailant who happened to be his own colleague, despite being armed and in a position to do so, reveal that he was incapable of continuing as a member of the Armed Force in the Union, as he lacked the requisite resolve to act with decisiveness when faced with such adversity. This judgment has been passed by Division Bench after hearing Sr. Advocate Surinder Kour for the appellant whereas DSGI Vishal Sharma for the UOI, while hearing an appeal of the impugned order passed by the single bench, wherein the dismissal of the Appellant was confirmed. The court refused to interfere with the said order, after noting that the same was passed after duly perusing the records of the inquiry, which revealed no violation of natural justice or any material suggesting that the Appellant was not negligent. DB held that the punishment of dismissing the army personnel from services, due to negligence in disposing of the duties in an insurgency-affected area, cannot be considered disproportionate. The court observed that merely because the appellant was only in the second year of his service is no reason to be charitable to him. The Court said, "It must be remembered that the appellant was a member of an Armed Force of the Union in a State which was affected by insurgency." The appellant was appointed as a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as a constable. He was discharging his duty at the Chief Minister's Residence when a constable named Anand Kumar Singh opened fire upon a head constable and also injured the inspector before surrendering at the police station, Jammu. The Appellant was charged with failing to take down the assailant and for abandoning his post rather than neutralizing the assailant. The departmental inquiry found him guilty of dereliction of duty, and he was dismissed from his services. The Appellant filed the statutory appeal and thereafter a revision, both of which came to be dismissed. The writ petition filed by him before the single bench was also dismissed, leading him to file the Letter Patent Appeal before the Division Bench.The Appellant argued that he was found guilty without solid and direct evidence suggesting his negligence in carrying out his duty. It was also contended that the punishment of dismissing him from the services was disproportionate considering the fact that the Appellant was only in the second year of his service and his case should have been treated leniently. However, the appellate court rejected all the contentions, stating that the inquiry was conducted in a fair manner, giving the appellant the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the department and also allowing him to produce defense witnesses. It also said that there was no perversity in the orders passed by the inquiry officer, warranting interference by the writ court. Division Bench noted that the nature of the services carried out by the armed personnel in the insurgency affected area was very sensitive and, under these circumstances, the dismissal from the services due to negligence will not be unjustified. Therefore, the Division Bench did not find any perversity in the decision passed by the single bench and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
—JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
