Provisioning Manual Crpf
CRPF Rank Structure Listed below is the rank positions in Central Reserve Police Force Group A Gazetted Officers. Director General (Apex Scale of the Indian Police Service). Additional Director General (Higher Administrative Grade of the IPS cadre, also available to BSF cadre). Inspector General (IG/ DIR.ISA ). Deputy Inspector General (DIGP). Additional Deputy Inspector General (Addl.
DIGP). Commandant. Second - in -Command (2 I/C).
Deputy Commandant. Assistant Commandant Executive (Non-Gazetted)/ Combatised Staff. Subedar Major. Inspector. Sub-Inspector. Asstt. Inspetor.
Head Constable. Constable Ministerial/Hosp Staff (Non-Combatised). Office Supdt.
PA to IGP/Dir. Head Clerk/Steno Gr.II. Hindi translator Gr.II.
UDC/Steno Gr.III. LDC. Asstt. Matron. Sister-In Charge.
Model user manual. Ward Sister. Staff Nurse. Pharmacist(SG). Pharmacixt/Radio Grapher.
Laboratory Technician. Electrician. Lab.Asstt/ X-ray Asstt. Telephone Operator. Asstt.Operator Room Group ‘C’ (Executive/ Ministerial/ Hospital).
HC (Senior Gestetner Operator). CT (Daftry) / Plumber Group ‘D’. Dresser/ Nursing Asstt./ Ayah/ Cook/ Barber/ Dhobi/ Water Carrier(SG). Cook/ Barber/ Dhobi(NSG).
Peon/ SK/Farrash/ Safai Karmachari/ Water Carrier/ Follower/ Steward/ Wardboy/ Mali/ Chowkidar/ Masalchi/ Kahar/ Table Boy/ Carpenter/ Staff for Sister Mess.
Bench: M Chandra JUDGMENT Mahesh Chandra, J. (1) This Writ Petition is directed against the termination of petitioner's service vide orders dated 18th December, 1979 of the D.I.G. (P), Central Reserve Police Force (for short 'CRPF') and orders dated 11th February, 1981 of the Director General, Crpf upholding the orders of the DIG(P). It has been requested that the said orders be quashed and sct aside and appropriate writ be issued directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full back salary and continual services with all allowances and other benefits. (2) Facts giving rise to this petition arc that the petitioner was employed as Sub Inspector in Crpf and was posted as Quarter Master Sub Inspector (Stores) (for short 'QMSI') at Ajmer between 15th February, 1976 and 9th June, 1978 and on the night of 18th April, 1978 it was reported to him that the window of woollen cloth store room was lying open and thereupon on the next morning the petitioner reported the matter to the Company Commander (Stores) at 9.30 A.M. In course of time on 14th April 1979 memo.
(Annexure I to the Writ Petition) was issued to the petitioner by the inquiry officer whereby the petitioner was intimated that an enquiry was proposed to be held against him under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules') in connection with the neglect of duties. The said memo.
Was accompanied with statement of Articles of Charges framed against him. The said statement of Articles of Charges reads as under: 'Statement of Articles of Charge framed against Si S.R. Farishta, Group Centre No. Ii Crpf, Ajmer. That the said S7 S.R. Farishta while functioning as Qmsi (Stores) GO-11.
Crpf, Ajmer during the period from 15-2-1976 to 9-6-1978 committed remissness in the discharge of Ins duty in his capacity as a member of the force under Section 11(1) of Crpf Act, 1949 in that he failed to ensure proper care I preservation and maintenance of stores. He having been fully aware of the fact that the number of latches of windows of store room No. 6 woollen clothings) were not functioning properly, failed to take timely remedial measures for rectification of the defect, thus contributing to the loss of 79.26 meters of Serge blue cloth detected on 18-4-1978. That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Si S.R. Farista was guilty of neglect of duty in his capacity as a member of the force under section 11(1) of Crpf Act, 1949 in that having came to know of the fact through 690060741 Ct.
Bhagwan Singh. Store man on 18-4-1978 at about 1945 hrs that one of the windows of woollen cloth Store room was open and its inside fitting iron strips (patti) removed and twisted inside and having visited the store room and opened it, he failed to report the facts immediately to his superior officers'. (3) In consequence of the enquiry, the Inquiry officer in his 'report dated 25th August, 1979 absolved the petitioner on one court and held him guilty on two counts. It was held by him that 'She charge against Si S.R.Farishta of CG-II that he having 'been Fully aware of the fact that the number of latches of windows of store room 5 (woollen clothing) were not functioning properly and he failed to take timely remedial reasons for rectification of the defect could not be proved'. It was farther held that -charge against St S.R. Farishta that 'while functioning as Qmsi (Stores) of GC-II Ajmer from 15-2-1976 lo 9-6-1978 he failed to exercise proper supervision/security and safety of woollen store room No.
6 as required vide para l(vi) of Provisioning Manual 1974 has been proved beyond doubt' and lastly it was held that 'the Article of Charge Ii framed against Si S.R. Farista of Gc Ii Crpf Ajmer has been proved fully beyond any doubt from the statements of Public Witness s, and of delinquent himself'. The petitioner was thereupon issued a Memo.
Viii 16/79 dated 14th April, 1979 by the Dig, C.R.P.F., Ajmeri and the petitioner submitted his reply thereto and in consequence the impugned order was passed by Dig, Crpf on 18th December, 1979 which was confirmed on appeal by the Director General, C.R.P.F. On 11th February, 1981. (4) The findings of the Inquiry officer on two counts on which the petitioner has been found guilty have been assailed before me.
As regards charge under Article Ii it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even according to the case of the department the open window was detected on 18th April, 1978 at about 1900 hrs by Public Witness 5 Const. Budh Ram who was sentry No. 2 of night Guard and he reported the matter to Public Witness 4 Link Rudra Bahadur. Guard Commander, who then came to the spot and inspected the window and he then went to Roll Call Ground to report about this open window and he reported it to Bhm (P.W. 1) Mahabir Singh and narrated the condition of the window to him.
It was thereafter that the matter was reported to the petitioner as Qmsi and the petitioner next morning on 19th April, 1978 reported the matter to Company Commandant (Stoics) at 9.30 A.M. And it is submitted that even according to the case of department there was no inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in reporting the incident to the Company Commandant. It has further been urged in this behalf that it was not enjoined upon the petitioner under the 'Provisioning Manual for the Central Reserve Police Force, 1974' to at once report the matter to Company Commandant (Stores) and as petitioner reported the matter on the next morning when the office Opened, there was no inordinate delay in reporting. In this behalf my attention has been drawn to Chapter 5 of the Provisioning Manual for the Central Reserve Police Force.In para 5.21 thereof 'provision for care and maintenance of clothes stores' has been laid down and it reads as under: (5) 31. All concerned will be responsible for the proper maintenance of the articles in their respective charges. The less of or damage to any article will be reported to the Commandant through normal channel, who will issue orders for necessary action'. A reading of this provision does not indicate that any duty was cast upon the petitioner to at once report the matter to Company Commander (Stores).
It would be enough compliance with this provision if the matter was reported to Company Commander next morning on the reopening of the office. Nothing more can be read in the provision than what is specifically laid down and this provision has to be given its ordinary meaning more so when extended meaning have visited the petitioner with grave consequences of termination of his service. In view thereof, it would be difficult to accept that the petitioner was remiss in reporting the incident to the Company Commander (Stores) in the morning. It is not urged before me that the office of the Company Commander remains open throughout the night.
It also cannot be said that there was any inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner to report the matter to the Company Commander on the next morning. In the absence of specific rule requiring the petitioner to at once report the matter to the Company Commander, para 5.31 produced above cannot be interpreted to the disadvantage of the petitioner and consequently this finding of the Inquiry Officer cannot be sustained and the petitioner cannot be held guilty of this Article of charge. Coming to the charge of remissness in the discharge of his duties in his capacity as a member of the force between 15th February, 1976 and 9th June, 1978 it has been urged that the remissness complained of has been linked in the article of charge with the failure of the petitioner to take timely remedial measures for rectification of the defect in the latches of windows of stores room No. 6 (Woollen clothings) and it has been submitted that since the petitioner has been absolved of the charge of the failure to take timely remedial measure for rectification of the defect of latches of windows of store room No.
Crpf Provisioning Manual In Hindi
6, charge of remissness cannot be brought home to the petitioner. Reading of Article I reproduced above, does indicate that the remissness been linked with failure of the petitioner to take timely remedial measures for rectification Of latches of windows of store room No. 6 and in this view of the matter it would be difficult to uphold the finding of the Inquiry Officer after the Inquiry Officer absolved the petitioner with regard to charge of defect in latches of windows. Even otherwise the charge of 'remissness in discharge of his duty' cannot lie in vacuum. I has to be with reference to certain specific incidents of remissness and the only incident mentioned in the charges is that the latches of windows of store room No.
6 were not functioning popert, and the petitioner failed to take timely remedial measures for rectification of the defects. There is no other incident of remissness brought out in the statement of Articles of charges. General remissness cannot exist in isolation.
Consequently it would follow that after the petitioner has been absolved of the charge of failure to take remedial action of defect of latches of window, the charge of remissness also cannot stand and I hold accordingly. (6) The finding on this charge has also been challenged on ground of vagueness of the charge. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if charge of remissness in discharge of duties is independent of the failure to take remedial action for defective functioning of latches of window of store room No. 6 in that event the charge suffers from vagueness, in as much as the facts and incidents on the basis whereof this charge is based have not been spelt out and brought home to the petitioner in the charges either in the statement of imputation of misconduct or in the statement of articles of charge framed against the petitioner. I find weight in this contention as well.
However, the first question in this context which arises in my mind is what is meant by- vague? Vague can be considered as the antonym of definite. If the ground is incapable of being understood or defined with sufficient certainly, it can be called vague. It is not possible to state affirmatively more on the question of what is vague. It must vary according to facts and circumstances of each case. There cannot be a hard and fast rule to determine vagueness. If the charge is vague, there is no reasonable opportunity to show cause, and it will vitiate the inquiry proceedings.
It is a fatal defect. Charge should not be vague. If charge is vague, ' rules of natural justice have been violated. The charge sheet must be specific and must set out all the necessary particulars irrespective of the fact that delinquent knew about the same. Although precision of a criminal charge is not needed but it must be clear, specific and definite. Vagueness of the charge per se amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity.
Even otherwise it is a basic principle of natural justice that the delinquent must know the charge distinctly and clearly. Violation of such principle of natural justice is prejudice by itself and there is no need for proof of any further prejudice.
It was held in, 1957 Labour Law Journal (1) 494 (1) as under: 'A departmental enquiry consists of four main staves viz (a) charge, (b) investigation of the charge, (c) finding, (d) punishment and appeal. A departmental enquiry is not conducted with the rigidity of a judicial trial. Hence the charge which is to be framed need not be framed with the precision of a charge in a criminal proceeding. But it must not be vague or so general as to make it impossible of being traversed. The test is as to whether the charge conveys to the delinquent the exact nature of the alleged offence, in a way that would enable him to meet the charge. A departmental enquiry is not a judicial proceeding and the law and procedure applicable to judicial proceedings are not applicable.
The strict rules of the law of evidence are not to be applied. But this does not mean that the proceedings could be held in an arbitrary manner. The roles of natural justice must be observed.
The enquiring officer must be careful to deal with the charges as framed and not depart from them or import extraneous matters'. (7) Considering the provisions of Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules it was held in, as under: 'Rule 55 embodies a principle which is one of the basic contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him.
The whole object of furnishing the statement of allegations is to give all the necessary particulars and details which would satisfy the requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity to put up defense. So, in spite of the Government servant repeatedly objecting to the vagueness of charges and no furnishing of statement of allegations, the failure to supply him the facts, circumstances and particulars relevant to the charges even at the stage of second show cause notice would amount to denial of proper and reasonable opportunity of defending himself in complete disregard of Rule 55'. Thus when charge of remissness in this case is read independently of failure of the petitioner to take remedial measures etc. Then certainly the charge of remissness in this instant case suffers from vagueness and consequently the petitioner cannot be held guilty on this vague charge and as a result finding of Inquiry officer on this count cannot be sustained. (8) It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Inquiry Officer has misdirected himself in so far as he has proceeded outside the ambit of the charge and his findings are based upon conjectures and as such are perverse being not based on evidence.
In this behalf I have Been taken through page No. 29 of the Inquiry report (page 84 of the Writ Petition).
It has been observed therein by the Inquiry Officer as follows: 'The delinquent would have been not able to find the ways and means to make up the deficiency of serge blue so it is presumed that he (delinquent) might have played a drama of leaving open the back side window of room No. 6 of woollen clothing on. 18-4-78 evening under the presumption that on 18-4-78 every body of GC-II will be busy in making necessary arrangements for the closing ceremony of Inter Bn. Shooting competition of Ajmer Range conducted by GC-II. The delinquent might have been thought that due to collection of lot many people at GC-II no one will pay any attention to this side and on later stage the considerable suspicious would be diverted to other parties also, but it was the bad luck of the delinquent that the opened window was detected on the very early hour of the evening.
It is established fact that no one will dare to play the mischief of opening the window of store room from outside at 1900 hrs or before that, because the Qm store is situated in between 'Quarter Guard and M.T. Parks where some people always remain present. It was the well calculated plan with mala fide intention.'
From this part of the finding the contention of the petitioner's counsel is substantiated. Where the finding of Inquiry Officer are based on conjectures and are perverse and not based on any evidence and are the product of flight of imagination of the Inquiry Officer, such finding based upon such imaginary reasoning cannot be sustained.
It would indicate the total no application and misapplication of the mind by the Inquiry Officer.