Angad Das vs Union Of India & Ors

the lesser mortals. They are always expected to remember

that power and authority must be judiciously exercised

according to the laws and human compassion. Arrogance and

vanity have no place in discharge of their official functions and

duties.

1

2. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

3. Heard the learned Additional Solicitor General and the

learned counsel for the appellant at length. Brief facts

necessary to dispose of these appeals are recapitulated as

under:-

4. The appellant was recruited as a Constable in the Central

Reserve Police Force, Balia Police Line in the State of U.P. in

the year 1969. He was promoted to the post of Lance Naik,

then as Naik and thereafter to the post of Head Constable.

When the appellant was posted as a Head Constable at

Jammu and Kashmir, he was served a show cause notice

dated 11.4.1995 by the Commandant 51 BN, C.R.P.F.

(respondent no.4) alleging that the date of birth as given by

him at the time of joining the service was found false. An

enquiry was conducted and thereafter the appellant was

compulsorily retired from the service by way of punishment by

2 an order dated 14th June, 1996 by respondent no.4. The said

order reads as under:-

"After careful thought and keeping in view of his long service career, a family to support and considering natural justice, I hereby impose the punishment of `COMPULSORY RETIREMENT FROM SERVICE WITH FULL PENSIONARY BENEFITS AND GRATUITY' on No.690298321 HC Angad Dass w.e.f. 31/5/96 AN, in pursuance of the authority vested in me under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 read with table below Rule 27 of CRPF Rule 1955."

5. The appellant had sent a very polite letter of request to

the Additional District Inspector General, Police (for short,

DIG) praying that his request for re-employment be kindly

considered because he has enormous responsibility of

educating and marrying five daughters. The prayer was made

with folded hands and touching his feet. The letter reflected

pinnacle of humility. The relevant portion of request letter

reads as under:-

"I am burdened with the education and marriages of five daughters and I am the only earning hand and according to the hereditary record of Gram Panchayat my date of birth is

3 8.7.47. I had received that record under the order of BDO. I am also having certificate from the Gram Pradhan. I, therefore, with folded hands and touching the feet praying that I may be allowed to complete the service and I may be awarded any other punishment otherwise, seven people will be uprooted and will resort to beggary and will fall on the wrong path for earning their bread."

6. Respondent No.4 would have been fully justified in either

accepting or declining the appellant's request for re-

employment, but astonishingly, on 8th October, 1996 the

request letter of the appellant for re-employment was treated

as an appeal by the DIG Police, CRPF, Avadi, Madras and the

punishment of "compulsory retirement" as awarded by the

Commandant, 51 BN, CRPF, was enhanced to that of "removal

from service" w.e.f. 31.5.1996. No provision of law permits

him to treat a letter of request for re-employment as an appeal.

The DIG (Police) has no power or authority to enhance the

sentence of the appellant. We fail to comprehend how such

an innocuous and polite letter of request seeking re-

employment on compassionate ground can ever receive such

4 an unwarranted and arrogant reaction. The order is wholly

arbitrary and illegal.

7. The appellant aggrieved by the said order filed a revision

petition before the Special Director General, C.R.P.F.,

Hyderabad who unfortunately passed the following order on

2nd August, 1997. The relevant part of the order reads as

under:-

"HC Angad Das of 51 BN CRPF is hereby removed from service with effect from the date of issue of this order. The intervening period between 31-5-96 (AN) to the date of this order will be treated as `Dies Non' for all purposes."

8. We are astonished as to how a simple letter of request for

re-employment has been treated as an appeal by the D.I.G.

Police, CRPF, and in exercise of his power under Rule 28 of the

CRPF Rules, 1955, the punishment of "compulsory retirement"

from service has been enhanced to "removal from service"

w.e.f. 31.5.1996. The mere letter for re-employment could not

have been treated as an appeal under Rule 28 of the CRPF

Rules, 1955. The D.I.G. Police, CRPF, was totally unjustified

5 in enhancing the punishment from "compulsory retirement" to

"removal from service". The order was legally untenable. The

Special Director General has also seriously erred in upholding

the order dated 8th October, 1996 passed by the D.I.G. Police,

CRPF.

9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we

are constrained to set aside the orders dated 8th October, 1996

and 2nd August, 1997. Consequently, the order dated

21.5.1996 passed by the Commandant, 51 BN, CRPF as

amended by order dated 14.6.1996 of compulsory retirement

is restored. The appellant would be entitled to all the benefits

which flow from the said order.

10. The appellant and his family have suffered tremendous

mental agony and harassment caused to them on account of

totally arbitrary orders mentioned above.

11. We also direct that the appellant be paid all the

pensionary benefits which have become due and payable to

6 him, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, within two

months from the date of communication of this order.

12. Consequently, these appeals are allowed. Respondent

No.1, Union of India is directed to pay costs of Rs.50,000/- to

the appellant within two months.

13. We hope and trust that senior officials in future would

not be totally oblivious of the problems of the humble and

modest employees and pass similar orders.

..............................J. (Dalveer Bhandari)

............................J. (A.K. Patnaik) New Delhi;

February 18. 2010.

7