# Jai Prakash Yadav v. D.G. (C.R.P.F.) C.G.O. New Delhi & Ors - **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 1139 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2023-04-12 - **Case number:** Writ-A No. 50320 of 2009 - **Bench:** Saurabh Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jai-prakash-yadav-v-d-g-c-r-p-f-c-g-o-new-delhi-ors-49811 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Civil Law - Service Matter - Quantum of Punishment - Bigamy - Central Reserve Police Force Act 1949 - Section 11(1) - CRPF Rules 1955 - Rule 27 - Petitioner, already married, performed a second marriage without seeking permission - Dismissal order passed under S. 11(1) - Court held that the disciplinary authority was required to impose only a minor punishment under S. 11(1) but instead illegally imposed a major punishment (dismissal), which was illegal. (Para 10) Allowed. (E-5) ## Text 4 All. Jai Prakash Yadav Vs. D.G. (C.R.P.F.) C.G.O. New Delhi & Ors. 1139 reason why regulations or conditions concerning, generally, the welfare of students and teachers should not be made applicable in order to provide a proper academic atmosphere, as such provisions do not in any way interfere with the right of administration or management under Article 30(1). 161. The essence of secularism in India is the recognition and preservation of the different types of people, with diverse languages and different beliefs, and placing them together so as to form a whole and united India. Articles 29 and 30 do not more than seek to preserve the differences that exist, and at the same time, unite the people to form one strong nation." 10. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances as well as by intensive reading of the scheme of administration, the ground as taken up by the as learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 5 is not tenable in the eye of law and as such the notice/order of retirement dated 10.12.2008 issued by respondent no. 3 is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. The writ petition is hereby allowed with direction to the respondent nos. 3 and 5 to treat the petitioner retired after attaining the age of 62 years and ensure the payment along with the backwages, admissible incrimants thereupon within 15 days from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order produced before them. Retiral benefits along with the payment of delayed interest admissible to the rate of the current lending rate of the nationalized Bank will be admissible to the petitioner. ---------- (2023) 4 ILRA 1139 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.04.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. Writ-A No. 50320 of 2009 Jai Prakash Yadav ...Petitioner Versus D.G. (C.R.P.F.) C.G.O. New Delhi & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Gopal Misra, Sri Malik Juned Ahmad Counsel for the Respondents: A.S.G.I., Sri C.P. Gupta, Sri Sanjay Kr. Om Civil Law - Service Matter - Quantum of Punishment - Bigamy - Central Reserve Police Force Act 1949 - Section 11(1) - CRPF Rules 1955 - Rule 27 - Petitioner, already married, performed a second marriage without seeking permission - Dismissal order passed under S. 11(1) - Court held that the disciplinary authority was required to impose only a minor punishment under S. 11(1) but instead illegally imposed a major punishment (dismissal), which was illegal. (Para 10) Allowed. (E-5) (Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard Sri Malik Juned Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kr. Om, learned counsel for Union of India representing all the respondents. 2. This petition has been moved with a prayer to "issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned dismissal order dated 26.04.2008 passed by respondent no.4 as well as the orders dated 14.7.2009, 23.12.2008 and 9.8.2008 passed by the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively." 1140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 3. It is the case of the petitioner that after conducting the enquiry a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated with the charges of bigamy against the petitioner, after adopting the due procedure of the enquiry as prescribed under rule 27 of CRPF rules 1955 the punishment order dated 26.04.2008 passed by the disciplinary authority that is respondent no. 4 through which the order of dismissal has been passed against the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the dismissal order the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal and the same was also rejected vide order dated 09.08.2008 by the respondent no. 3 and finally the order passed by the disciplinary authorities as well as while preferring the representation before the respondent no. 2 which was also dismissed vide order dated 23.12.2008. After receiving the order dated 23.12.2008 passed by the revisional authority, the petitioner preferred a representation before the Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force and the same was also rejected vide order dated 14.07.2009, at the time of raising arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned that the representation as preferred by the petitioner before the respondent no.1 was not the statutory provision but that was in shape of the representation for seeking sympathy over the illegal action as carried out by the other responding authorities. 4. The above mentioned orders were put to challenge in the present petition but on other grounds inter-alia, determination of the quantum of punishment has been erroneously determined by the disciplinary authority while passing the order dated 26.04.2008, which has been dealt under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act 1949. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out the Section 11(1) of the Act of 1949 which is reproduced here below:- 11. "Minor punishments.- (1) The Commandant or any other authority or officer as may be prescribed, may, subject to any rules made under this Act, award in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal any one or more of the following punishments to any member of the Force whom he considers to be guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, or remissness in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force, that is to say,? (a) reduction in rank; (b) fine of any amount not exceeding one month?s pay and allowances; (c) confinement to quarters, lines or camp for a term not exceeding one month; (d) confinement in the quarter-guard for not more than twenty-eight days, with or without punishment drill or extra guard, fatigue or other duty; and (e) removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in the Force. (2) Any punishment specified in clause (c) or clause(d) of sub-section (1) may be awarded by any gazetted officer when in command of any detachment of the Force away from headquarters, provided he is specially authorised in this behalf by the commandant. (3) The assistant commandant, a company officer or a subordinate officer, not being below the rank of subedar or inspector, commanding a separate detachment or an outpost, or in temporary command at the headquarters of the Force, may, without a formal trial, award to any member of the Force who is for the time being subject to his authority any one or more of the following punishment for the 4 All. Jai Prakash Yadav Vs. D.G. (C.R.P.F.) C.G.O. New Delhi & Ors. 1141 commission of any petty offence against discipline which is not otherwise provided for in this Act, or which is not of a sufficiently serious nature to require prosecution before a criminal court, that is to say,? (a) confinement for not more than seven days in the quarter-guard or such other place as may be considered suitable, with forfeiture of all pay and allowances during its continuance; (b) punishment drill, or extra guard, fatigue or other duty, for not more than thirty days with or without confinement to quarters, lines or camp; (c) censure or severe censure: Provided that this punishment may be awarded to a subordinate officer only by the Commandant. (4) A jemadar or sub-inspector who is temporarily in command of a detachment or an outpost may, in like manner and for the commission of any like offence, award to any member of the Force for the time being subject to his authority any of the punishments specified in clause (b) of subsection (3) for not more than fifteen days." 5. The fact as highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been disputed since the same is very much available in the order dated 16.04.2008 which has been passed by the disciplinary authority after conducting proper disciplinary proceedings in consonance with the rules 27 of the rules of 1955 while framing the order passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority as well as passed by the disciplinary authority has been basically assailed in the present petition on the ground of the quantum of punishment which is contrary to the Section 11(1) of the Act of 1949. 6. By bare perusal of the Section 11 it is crystal clearly apparent that any punishment determined by the disciplinary authority under section 11 the same must be minor in nature whereas in the instant matter the order of dismissal comes under the major punishment as determined over the petitioner. 7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that the action of the petitioner which is self reflectory while conducting the enquiry and it has been proved that the petitioner who was already married and performed second marriage without seeking permission, which was not permissible in the eyes of law and as such the punishment awarded in shape of dismissal is appropriate and proportionate to the illegal action as carried out by the petitioner. 8. While responding the precise query over the material in question as highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the attraction of Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act of 1949, the same is unanswered by the learned counsel for the respondent. 9. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that once the reliance has been taken up by the disciplinary authority for determining the punishment under Section 11(1) CRPF Act 1949, it was only option available before the disciplinary authority to impose the minor penalty but the same has been contrary determined in shape of the dismissal against the petitioner which is apparently illegal and as such the order dated 26.04.2008 along-with the orders dated 14.7.2009, 23.12.2008, 09.08.2008 and the order dated 14.07.2009 are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the liberty 1142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES is open for the responding authorities to reconsider the matter strictly in accordance with Section 11(1) of the CRPF rules of 1949 Act for determining the punishment, if required in shape of minor penalty only. 10. Writ petition stands allowed, accordingly. ---------- (2023) 4 ILRA 1142 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.03.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. First Appeal From Order No. 67 of 2000 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Shakarpur, Delhi ...Appellant Versus Asghar & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Amresh Sinha Counsel for the Respondents: Civil Law -Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 30 - Appeal - Truck driver murdered during course of employment - Truck Owner acknowledged deceased's employment as driver in police report - Commissioner granted compensation to heirs of deceased truck driver - Insurance company challenged award on grounds of lack of evidence linking death to employment, absence of valid driving license, and non-impleadment of vehicle owner's legal heirs - Held: Murder during employment is compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act as per Supreme Court precedent in Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd - High Court's jurisdiction u/s 30 limited to substantial questions of law - Commissioner's factual findings not to be disturbed unless perverse - Appeal dismissed. Allowed. (E-5) List of Cases cited: 1. Rita Devi Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd., LAWS(SC)2000 4 99 2. North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs Smt. Sujatha ; Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009 dt 2.11.2018 3. Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs Divisional Manager & anr., 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) 4. Mayan Vs Mustafa & anr., 2022 ACJ 524 5. Salim Vs New India Assurance. Co. Ltd. & anr., 2022 ACJ 526 (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.) 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act challenging the judgment and award dated 30.11.1999 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bulandshahr in WC Case No. 6 of 1999 whereby the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs.2,16,910/- with interest at the rate of 12%. 2. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Commissioner on the following substantial questions of law: "A). Whether in absence of any evidence to establish that the death was the result of kidnapping of the alleged vehicle and killing by the kidnappers while the deceased was in the course of employment of the owner of the truck, Court below was justified in allowing the claim petition?