IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 29-10-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.4502 of 2001 P.Murugesan .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bihar State, CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force), Patna, Bihar State-800 014. 2.The Commandant, 133, Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) M.H.Stadium, R.Nagar, Patna, Bihar State. .. Respondents. Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of Certiorari, calling upon the production of the records relating to the order, dated 11.10.99, made in No.P.R.3/99-133 Station II passed by the 2nd respondent herein as confirmed by the order, dated 20.5.2000, made in No.P.VIII-PM(133)/99-EC-1 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ayyadurai For Respondents : Mr.B.Ullasa Velan (CGSC) (R1 & R2) O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has stated that he had joined in the Central Reserve Police Force, on 30.7.93, as a constable. As the petitioner hails from Tamilnadu, he is proficient in Tamil. However, his knowledge of Hindi is poor. The petitioner had been posted in the State of Bihar and he was discharging his duties, sincerely and diligently. While so, the Commandant, 133 Battalion, at Imphal, had issued a memorandum, dated 5.4.99, intimating the petitioner that an enquiry was proposed to be held against him, under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. The first charge is that the petitioner had overstayed beyond the leave period from 10.6.98, without the prior permission from the competent authority and that the petitioner had reported back in the unit, on 24.11.98, on his own. The second charge was that the petitioner had deserted the line, on 26.11.98, without the prior permission of the competent authority and without any intimation, which was prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Force. According to the statement of imputation, the petitioner had been sanctioned 60 days of earned leave, only from 11.4.98 to 9.6.98 and he was to have reported for duty at Patna on 9.6.98. However, the petitioner had overstayed without reporting for duty. After the petitioner had reported for duty on 24.11.98, he had deserted the Force after two days and had reported back only on 15.12.98.
3. It has been further stated that the petitioner had submitted his explanation to the second respondent. However, an enquiry had been ordered to be conducted, with regard to the charges alleged against the petitioner. The entire enquiry had been conducted in Hindi. The petitioner did not understand anything that had happened during the enquiry. In spite of the petitioner’s request that the enquiry be conducted in English, as he did not understand Hindi, the enquiry had been conducted and completed without acceding to the request of the petitioner. The petitioner was compelled to sign various papers during and after the enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioner had received the order, dated 11.10.99, dismissing him from service. The dismissal order was also in Hindi. In fact, the Enquiry Officer had wrongly recorded that the petitioner had pleaded guilty of the charges. Similarly, he had also erroneously recorded that the petitioner did not raise any objection when the enquiry was conducted in Hindi. In fact, the petitioner had pleaded several times to the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry in English so that he could defend himself, effectively. However, the Enquiry Officer had continued to conduct the enquiry in Hindi and passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service, without giving him a fair opportunity of defending himself. The petitioner had filed an appeal, dated 24.12.99, before the first respondent, challenging the order of dismissal passed by the second respondent. The first respondent had confirmed the order of dismissal, by an order, dated 20.5.2000. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the allegations and averments made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that the petitioner had been appointed as a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force, on 30.7.93. After completion of the basic training, he had been transferred to 133 Battalion of the Central Reserve Police Force at Patna, on 13.8.94. The petitioner had overstayed his leave for five days, from 20.1.95 to 24.1.95, which had been regularised as five days Leave Half Pay, with no leave salary. In the second spell he had over stayed his leave for seven days, from 17.10.97 to 23.10.97, which had been regularised as 7 days Leave Half Pay, with no leave salary. On the third occasion, the petitioner was sanctioned 60 days earned leave, from 11.4.98 to 9.6.98 and he had overstayed from leave, from 10.6.98 to 24.11.98. When he had overstayed his leave, a warrant of arrest had been issued to the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram, South Arcot District, Tamilnadu, for apprehending the petitioner, vide 133 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Office Letter No.W.II-9/98-EC-II, dated 29.7.98, based on a complaint lodged by the Officer Commanding, B/133 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force. In the meantime, the petitioner had sent a registered letter for extension of leave, upto 6.10.98, as he was on medical treatment in his home town. In his reply, the Commandant, 133 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, namely, the second respondent herein, had directed the petitioner, vide Letter No.W.II-9-98-EC-II, dated 12.9.98, to report for duty failing which disciplinary action would be taken against him. The petitioner had again requested for further extension of leave, upto 6.11.98. The second respondent had again directed him to report for duty, forthwith, along with his documents relating to the medical treatment. In stead of joining duty, the petitioner had sent another application from his home town stating that his physical condition was bad and that he was unable to join duty and he had sought for resignation from service. The Commandant, 133 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, vide Letter No.D.V.1/98-133-EC-I, dated 11.11.98, had replied to the petitioner stating that the resignation tendered by him from his home town cannot be accepted. He had further directed him to report for duty forthwith. The petitioner had reported on his own, on 24.11.98, at HQ/133 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Rajendar Nagar, Patna.
5. It has been further stated that the petitioner had again deserted from 133 Battalion HQ lines, in the afternoon of 26.11.98, on his own, without any sanction of leave or prior permission of the competent authority. The petitioner had again submitted an application for resignation, dated 1.12.98, from his home address. In reply to his application, Letter No.W.II-9/98-EC-II, dated 25.12.98, had been sent to his home address with the direction to report for duty. The petitioner had again reported on his own, on 16.12.98. A departmental enquiry had been conducted against the petitioner and the charges levelled against him had been proved. Therefore, he was dismissed from service, with effect from 11.10.99.
6. It has been further stated that the Memorandum and Articles of Charges framed against the petitioner were in English. The petitioner had joined the Central Reserve Police Force, where Hindi is used as a main language for speaking. The petitioner had also undergone the basic training for nine months, in which the medium of language was Hindi. The departmental enquiry was conducted in Hindi and during the course of the enquiry the petitioner had neither objected to the conducting of the enquiry in Hindi, nor had he requested the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry in English. During the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had asked the petitioner in Hindi as to whether the charges framed against him had been understood. The petitioner had replied in the affirmative in Hindi and he had also signed the papers after having understood the charges, clearly. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry in a proper and fair manner, as per the existing rules. There is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner had objected to the enquiry being conducted in Hindi, at any point of time. All opportunities have been given to the petitioner to defend himself. Therefore, there is no infringement of the principles of natural justice. The dismissal order had been passed by the second respondent on 11.10.99, vide Office Order No.P.VIII-3/99-133-EC-II. A copy of the order had been served on the petitioner on the same day. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal before the Appellate Authority, on 24.12.99, after a gap of 82 days. As per Rule 28(e) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, an appeal should have been preferred before the appellate authority, within 30 days from the date of issuance of the dismissal order. However, the Appellate Authority had considered the appeal, ignoring the delay and after examining the entire records relating to the disciplinary proceedings, rejected the appeal as being devoid of merits. It has been further stated that even though the enquiry had commenced, on 5.4.99, the petitioner had not requested the Enquiry Officer to conduct the proceedings in English. The petitioner had not produced any documentary evidence proving his innocence. Instead he had taken the plea that the enquiry should have been conducted in English and that he should have been given the report of the enquiry also in English.
7. From the findings of the Enquiry Officer, it is clear that the petitioner had wilfully overstayed his leave from 10.6.98 to 24.11.98, on the first occasion. After rejoining duty on 24.11.98, he had again deserted the 133 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force lines, on 26.11.98, without prior permission from the competent authority. Thereafter, he had reported on his own, on 15.12.98. Hence, the punishment of dismissal from service, imposed on the petitioner, is commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed by him. The punishment of dismissal from service had been imposed on the petitioner in order to maintain the high level of discipline required in the Central Reserve Police Force.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order, dated 11.10.99, issued by the second respondent, dismissing the petitioner from service, is arbitrary, illegal, biased and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The enquiry had not been conducted fairly and properly and therefore, the order of dismissal, based on such an enquiry is unsustainable in law. The enquiry had been conducted in Hindi, a language which the petitioner is not conversant with. Several requests made by the petitioner to the enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry in English had not been heeded to by the Enquiry Officer. Since the petitioner does not know Hindi well enough he could not understand the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, the petitioner had not been in a position to defend himself, sufficiently. The Enquiry Officer, had taken the signatures of the petitioner, as though the petitioner had admitted his guilt. The petitioner had not pleaded guilty accepting the charges levelled against him. The English version of the documents considered during the enquiry had not been given to the petitioner. The reasons stated by the petitioner for his absence from duty had not been considered by the Enquiry Officer before he had submitted his report. The report of the Enquiry Officer was in Hindi and the request of the petitioner for an English version of the enquiry report had not been complied with before the impugned order of dismissal had been passed by the second respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also submitted that the order passed by the first respondent, in the appeal filed by the petitioner, is a non-speaking order. Sufficient reasons have not been given by the first respondent Appellate Authority to confirm the order passed by the second respondent. The original authority, namely, the second respondent herein, had not considered, elaborately, all the aspects of the matter before passing the impugned order, dismissing the petitioner from service. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondents are unsustainable in law and therefore, they are liable to be set aside.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had overstayed on his leave, without the necessary permission from the competent authority. He had deserted the Battalion in which he was deployed and therefore, an enquiry had been conducted against him, in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer in accordance with the procedures established by law and the relevant rules applicable to the case. The petitioner had not submitted sufficient proof to show that he was undergoing medical treatment or that he was ill. In fact he had sent the resignation letters wanting to resign from his service in the Central Reserve Police Force. Since both the resignation letters had been sent by the petitioner from his home town he was asked to appear in person, before the concerned authority, to submit his resignation. However, he had refused to do so. At no point of time, during the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer, with regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner, he had requested for the enquiry to be conducted in English. Nor had he protested against the enquiry proceedings being conducted in Hindi. The petitioner is well versed in Hindi as he had undergone the necessary training in Hindi. The petitioner was given all opportunities to participate in the enquiry and to take the help of an assistant during the enquiry. The questions which were posed to the petitioner had been answered by him in Hindi. In fact, the petitioner had not asked for any assistant, having knowledge in Hindi, to help him during the enquiry proceedings. This clearly shows that the petitioner was having sufficient knowledge of Hindi and therefore, no prejudice had been caused to him since the enquiry had been conducted in Hindi. Further, there is no provision under the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, for providing the enquiry report in English, as requested by the petitioner.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents had also submitted that the memorandum of charges had been given to the petitioner, on 5.4.99, and the enquiry had been conducted on 26.6.99. Even though there was sufficient time between the serving of the charge memo on the petitioner and the commencement of the enquiry proceedings, no request had been made by the petitioner stating that the enquiry should be conducted in English, nor had the petitioner made a request for any assistant on the ground that he did not know Hindi, sufficiently, to defend himself during the enquiry proceedings. In such circumstances, it is clear that the request of the petitioner for an English version of the enquiry report, is only with the wrongful intention of delaying the final outcome of the enquiry proceedings. Since the enquiry was conducted following all the rules applicable to the case and the principles of natural justice, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the same.
11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had placed before this Court the standing Order No.53 of 2001, dated 11.9.2001, in which it has been emphasized that all heads of offices/units/formations should avoid the practice of asking for English translation of Hindi communications, irrespective of the fact whether or not such facilities for translation were available in their office. It has also been stated that in accordance with the instructions issued, vide Government of India, Ministry of Home affairs, Department of Official Language, O.M.No.1/14013/15/87-OL(A.1), dated 30.10.87, disciplinary proceedings in respect of all officers/employees in region `A’ are to be conducted in Hindi and only in exceptional cases, if the Enquiry Officer does not have working knowledge in Hindi or the concerned officer/employee so desires, the disciplinary proceedings can be conducted in English. It has also been stated that under the provisions of Rule 10(4) of the O.L.Rules, 1976, it has been notified that the disciplinary proceedings is to be conducted in Hindi. Where the charged officer desires that the disciplinary proceedings may be conducted in English, he shall be asked to submit his request in writing.
12. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a persual of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the respondents, dismissing the petitioner from service. It is seen that the petitioner had committed misconduct by overstaying beyond the period of his leave, without the permission of the competent authority, as required, in accordance with the rules applicable to his service. The petitioner had participated in the enquiry conducted, based on the charges levelled against him, without any protest even though it was conducted in Hindi. Even though the petitioner had claimed that he had made several requests to the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry proceedings in English, there is nothing on record to show that such requests had been made by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has not been in a position to show that he was not given sufficient opportunity to put forth his case during the enquiry proceedings.
13. In fact, from the records available, it is seen that the petitioner has answered the questions posed to him, in Hindi. The petitioner had not opted to take the assistance from a person who had sufficient knowledge of Hindi, during the enquiry proceedings, even though it was permitted. The request made by the petitioner, for the production of an English Version of the enquiry report, is clearly an attempt to delay the inevitable result that he was facing, as a consequence of the enquiry proceedings conducted with regard to the charges levelled against him. It has not been shown that the enquiry proceedings were biased or that such proceedings were conducted arbitrarily, without following the principles of natural justice. The Central Reserve Police Force, in which the petitioner was employed, as a constable, is expected to maintain a high degree of discipline.
14.The Enquiry Officer had concluded that the charges levelled against the petitioner had been proved, based on the evidence available, both oral as well as documentary. The petitioner has not substantiated his claim that he was under medical treatment, by producing the medical certificates. Further, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had accepted the fact that there was no provision, either in the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1947, or in the Central Police force Rules, 1955, for the providing of the report of the enquiry proceedings. Further, there is nothing shown on behalf of the petitioner to support his claim that serious prejudice had been caused to him by the non-furnishing of the enquiry report in English. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had expressed his intention to resign from his service in the Central Reserve Police Force, on two different occasions. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner had neither the discipline nor the inclination necessary to serve in a disciplined Force, like the Central Reserve Police Force.
15. In such circumstances, sufficient grounds have not been made out by the petitioner for this Court to come to the conclusion that the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 11.10.1999, dismissing the petitioner from service and the order of the first respondent, dated 20.5.2000, confirming the said order, are illegal and void. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.
Index:Yes/No 29-10-2008 Internet:Yes/No csh To 1.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bihar State, CRPF (Central Reserve Police Force), Patna, Bihar State-800 014. 2.The Commandant, 133, Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) M.H.Stadium, R.Nagar, Patna, Bihar State. M.JAICHANDREN,J. csh Writ Petition No.4502 of 2001 29-10-2008