CRPF Dismissal Invalid for Rule 27 Violation
Advocate Mayank Kumar represented the petitioner wherein the High Court has held that dismissal of CRPF personnel without conducting a proper departmental enquiry violates principles of natural justice, ruling that the disciplinary authority must follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 while exercising powers under Section 12 of the CRPF Act, 1949.
Background of the Case
The petitions arose from a second round of litigation involving personnel appointed as Constables (GD) in the 39th Battalion of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) at Narayanpur (now Vijayawada). An FIR bearing No. 12/2009 was registered against the petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294, 506-B and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Following their arrest, the petitioners were placed under suspension from October 23, 2009. Subsequently, the Commandant dismissed them from service on November 9, 2009 by invoking Section 11 of the CRPF Act read with Rule 27-CC(ii) of the CRPF Rules, without holding a departmental enquiry.
Their statutory appeal and revision were rejected on March 21, 2011 and April 8, 2013 respectively.
Meanwhile, in Sessions Case No. 161/2012, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kondagaon, by judgment dated August 9, 2012, acquitted the petitioners of major charges and convicted them only under Section 323 IPC. The conviction was later set aside by the High Court on May 15, 2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 744/2012, resulting in complete acquittal.
After their acquittal attained finality, the petitioners sought reinstatement. However, their representation was rejected by the authorities on October 13, 2023, leading to the present proceedings.
Submissions by Petitioners
The petitioners contended that their dismissal was solely based on the criminal case and once they stood acquitted, the very basis of the disciplinary action ceased to exist. They argued that no departmental enquiry was conducted and the dismissal order was passed by invoking extraordinary powers under Rule 27-CC(ii).
They further submitted that similarly placed co-delinquents had been reinstated and denial of similar relief amounted to violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Court’s Observations
The Court examined Section 12 of the CRPF Act and Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules and held that Rule 27 constitutes a mandatory procedural safeguard. It observed that even though Section 12(1) is an enabling provision, the exercise of power under it must conform to procedural fairness and cannot bypass the requirement of enquiry.
The Court emphasized that the absence of a show cause notice and failure to provide an opportunity of hearing amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. It noted that Rule 27 embodies procedural safeguards and must be followed before imposing dismissal.
The Court further held that statutory provisions cannot be interpreted to override procedural fairness and reiterated that where a law prescribes a particular manner of doing an act, it must be followed strictly.
Findings on Dismissal Without Enquiry
The Court held that dismissal orders passed without conducting a departmental enquiry, particularly in the absence of urgency or impossibility, are unsustainable. It observed that Section 12 does not expressly dispense with the requirement of enquiry and must be read in conjunction with Rule 27.
It further clarified that dismissal based solely on criminal proceedings cannot stand once the accused is acquitted and the foundation of the disciplinary action ceases to exist.
Conclusion and Directions
The Court held that the impugned dismissal orders suffered from procedural illegality and violation of natural justice. It found that the disciplinary authority failed to follow mandatory safeguards and acted beyond the permissible scope of its powers.
Accordingly, the Court held the action unsustainable and proceeded to grant relief to the petitioners in accordance with law.
Also Read: NCLAT bars SEBI penalty claims after liquidation.
