Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sharad Bhaskar Manekar, was a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) appointed on 1.1.1997. While posted at Nagpur and assigned guard duty for arms and ammunition, he was served with a chargesheet dated 22.6.2007 alleging three charges: (1) theft of 200 rounds of 9mm ammunition and 10 rounds of .303 ammunition from the magazine, (2) unauthorized possession of the stolen ammunition, and (3) dereliction of duty. A departmental inquiry was conducted, and the Inquiry Officer found the charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. The petitioner's appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police was dismissed on 31.12.2007. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the dismissal order on grounds of procedural irregularities, including non-supply of Hindi transcription of the chargesheet, denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and non-supply of inquiry report. The court examined the record and found that the chargesheet was accompanied by a Hindi transcription, the petitioner participated in the inquiry without objection, and the inquiry report was supplied. The court held that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner. On merits, the court noted that the theft of arms and ammunition is a grave misconduct involving breach of trust and security risk, and the punishment of dismissal is proportionate. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Chargesheet - Non-supply of Hindi Transcription - The petitioner alleged that the chargesheet was served in English without Hindi transcription, violating Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955. The court held that since the petitioner was aware of the charges and participated in the inquiry without objection, no prejudice was caused. (Paras 5-10)
B) Service Law - Misconduct - Theft of Government Property - The petitioner was found guilty of stealing 200 rounds of 9mm ammunition and 10 rounds of .303 ammunition from the CRPF magazine. The court held that such misconduct involving theft of arms and ammunition is grave and warrants dismissal. (Paras 3-4, 11-12)
C) Service Law - Proportionality of Punishment - Dismissal - The court held that the punishment of dismissal is not disproportionate to the misconduct of theft of arms and ammunition, as it involves breach of trust and security risk. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disciplinary proceedings and the order of dismissal from service passed against the petitioner are vitiated due to non-supply of Hindi transcription of the chargesheet and other procedural irregularities, and whether the punishment of dismissal is proportionate to the misconduct of theft of arms and ammunition.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of dismissal from service and the appellate order are upheld.
Law Points
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Misconduct
- Theft of government property
- Natural justice
- Prejudice
- CRPF Act
- 1949
- Section 11(1)
- CRPF Rules
- 1955
- Rule 27
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (10) 101
WRIT PETITION NO.5030 OF 2011
A.S. Chandurkar, Urmila Joshi-Phalke
S.P. Palshikar for Petitioner, Neerja G. Choubey for Respondents
Sharad s/o Bhaskar Manekar
Union of India, Director General of Central Reserve Police Force, Inspector General of Police, West Sector, Central Reserve Police Force
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of dismissal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority in disciplinary proceedings.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 31.12.2007 passed by respondent No.3 dismissing his appeal and the order of dismissal from service.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was dismissed from service for theft of arms and ammunition, and he challenged the dismissal on grounds of procedural irregularities and disproportionate punishment.
Previous Decisions
The Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of dismissal from service under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. The appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police was dismissed on 31.12.2007.
Issues
Whether the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated due to non-supply of Hindi transcription of the chargesheet and other procedural irregularities?
Whether the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the chargesheet was served in English without Hindi transcription, violating Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955, and that he was denied opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and supply of inquiry report.
Respondents argued that the chargesheet was accompanied by Hindi transcription, the petitioner participated in the inquiry without objection, and the inquiry report was supplied. They contended that the misconduct of theft of arms and ammunition is grave and warrants dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that non-supply of Hindi transcription of the chargesheet did not cause prejudice as the petitioner participated in the inquiry without objection. The misconduct of theft of arms and ammunition is grave, and the punishment of dismissal is proportionate. Procedural irregularities not causing prejudice do not vitiate disciplinary proceedings.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner was served with chargesheet dated 22.6.2007 along with Hindi transcription of the said chargesheet.
The charges which were levelled against him, are as follows: No.1 : That Force No.971270613 C/GD Sharad Bhaskar Manekar, while was posted as Member ... committed theft of 200 rounds of 9mm ammunition and 10 rounds of .303 ammunition from the magazine.
The court held that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner as he participated in the inquiry without objection.
Procedural History
The petitioner was served with a chargesheet on 22.6.2007. A departmental inquiry was conducted, and the Inquiry Officer found the charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. The petitioner's appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police was dismissed on 31.12.2007. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on an unspecified date.
Acts & Sections
- Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949: Section 11(1)
- Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955: Rule 27
