The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the dismissal of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) employee who was serving as a Dhobi, calling the punishment "shockingly disproportionate" to the misconduct alleged against him and contrary to the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, LiveLaw reported on Thursday, October 29.

Source: LiveLaw

Justice Ashok Kumar Jain directed that the employee be reinstated with consequential benefits. The court held that the authorities had acted in a "hurried" and "autocratic" manner, amounting to a gross misuse of power, and that membership of a disciplined force does not entitle the authorities to deny an employee a fair hearing or an opportunity to present his defence.

According to the case record reported by LiveLaw and SSB Crack, a complaint alleged that the petitioner had consumed alcohol while on duty and misbehaved with colleagues. He was found guilty under Section 10(n) of the CRPF Act — a provision for less heinous offences involving acts prejudicial to good order and discipline — and sentenced to ten days' simple imprisonment in quarter guards.

Source: SSB Crack

While he was in custody serving that sentence, the authorities served him a show-cause notice requiring a reply by the next day. Because he was imprisoned, he could not submit any response. He was then suspended and eventually dismissed from service, and he challenged that dismissal before the High Court.

The petitioner argued that he had not been given the statements of witnesses and had been denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing, in breach of the principles of natural justice. He also contended that the medical report did not show any indication of alcohol consumption and that dismissal was an excessively severe penalty.

Accepting those arguments, the court observed: "There is no charge of committing more heinous offence against the petitioner and when the petitioner is charged for less heinous offence then how can one presume that for less heinous offence a person be penalized in a manner that he has to lose his job. A termination or removal is always treated as major penalty and it can be awarded only when there is a grave misconduct."

The court described the dismissal as "an economic death of an individual" and noted that the Commandant's process was hurried, that the petitioner was in custody on the date the notice was served and filed no reply, and that the medical report did not support the respondents' case. On that basis, the dismissal order was set aside and reinstatement was directed.

Advocates Tanmay Dhand, Suraj Dixit and Sumit Sharma appeared for the petitioner, while Rakesh Choudhary appeared for the respondents, LiveLaw reported.