HC rules dismissal of CRPF jawan from service ‘arbitrary’

Kolkata: Finding the dismissal from service of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel “arbitrary”, the Calcutta High Court has directed the Centre to review its decision and upon reinstatement, regularise his absence from duty as extraordinary leave without break in service.

The Bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury directed that if the petitioner affirms and submits an affidavit claiming he was not gainfully employed or was not receiving adequate remuneration during the period he was out of service, the respondents shall pay 75 per cent of the back wages along with all incidental benefits as payable to the petitioner by passing a reasoned order.

The petitioner claimed to be from a rural background who enrolled in CRPF in 2007 to earn livelihood. He claimed he had an unblemished record and was still dismissed from service in May 2010. He challenged the orders passed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority and prayed for his reinstatement.

He contended that the primary charge against him was alleged concealment of his involvement in a civil case under Section 147 of CrPC in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Haldia in connection with a land dispute. He also contended that to verify his character and antecedents, a verification roll was sent to the district magistrate (DM) who forwarded his report confirming the petitioner’s involvement in that civil case.

Petitioner’s counsel submitted petitioner was not the only accused but was arraigned along with others. Further, the proceeding against him was dropped prior to the report prepared by DM and petitioner had stated during enquiry that he was oblivious of the proceedings against him. These were ignored by the authorities in their orders.

Relying on an SC judgement, the counsel submitted this is a case where the employer ought to have ignored the suppression/false information. The court found that the removal order was arbitrary and disproportionate to the misconduct, especially since it did not take note of the gravity of the charge in the case against the petitioner.

The court observed that non-disclosure of information cannot form the sole ground for the competent authority to remove the petitioner from service. The petitioner was not charged with any heinous crime. The entire proceeding which was preventive in nature, was dropped much prior to removal from service. “In view thereof, I have no doubt in my mind that the order of removal from service cannot be sustained”.