Double jeopardy: HC orders reinstatement of CRPF constable dismissed from service
‘Release his withheld salary, other benefits for period he remained out of service from 2009’
Srinagar: Terming it rarest of the rare wherein a CRPF constable from Kashmir had been confined to Quarter Guard and subsequently dismissed from service for allegedly misbehaving with his boss, the High Court today directed reinstatement of the cop and payment of his wages since 2009.
The cop Mohammad Amin Wani in his writ petition stated that he had been wrongly accused of misconduct with his assistant commandant during duty in Uttar Pradesh in 2007.
A departmental enquiry came to be set up against Wani as a consequence whereof he was confined to Quarter Guard for 28 days without salary and allowances in 2008.
Wani says that although he was innocent, yet as a mark of obedience to the superior officers, he underwent the punishment awarded to him.
His petition states “the departmental enquiry came to be initiated against the petitioner under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, which provides for minor punishment, but surprisingly the petitioner was inflicted the major punishment of dismissal of service vide order purportedly issued under Rule 29 (d) of CRPF Rules, 1955.”
It is a specific case of Wani that DIG CRPF with a “hostile attitude” towards him awarded the most extreme punishment of dismissal from service against him in “most illegal, arbitrary and vicious manner”.
Hearing the case, Justice W S Nargal asked the Deputy Solicitor General of India about his response on the matter who fairly admitted “there is no evidence to show the enhancement of the punishment from Quarter Guard to dismissal,” and even the concerned law officer appearing on behalf of the Union of India fairly conceded in court to the aforesaid fact that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was disproportionate to the alleged offence.
Justice Nargal concluded “it is a rarest of rare case where on the basis of the enquiry report standing on circumstantial evidence, the petitioner was found guilty of indirect involvement in the incident and disciplinary action was taken against him.”
Having undergone the punishment for the alleged offence, “the concerned DIG without conducting any further enquiry or basis or following the principle of natural justice enhanced the punishment from 28 days to dismissal from service by resorting to the provisions of Rule 29 (d) of CRPF Rules,” Justice Nargal said.
He held that Clause 2 of Article 20 clearly prohibits two punishments for the same offence.
“Since the first punishment had been enforced and implemented on the cop, it was not permissible for the respondents to have imposed a second punishment. This is an extreme punishment and falls within the realm of major punishment,” he said.
The judge quashed the order of dismissal of constable Wani for the reasons that it has been passed in contravention of the provisions of the Constitution of India.
“The petitioner has been punished for the same offence twice which falls within the realm of double jeopardy.”
Further, the court directed the respondents to reinstate Wani and release his withheld salary for the period he remained out of service owing to the dismissal order of 2009.
The respondents were also directed to release all consequential benefits in favor of constable Wani in consequence of his reinstatement in the respondent department.
