Holding

The Court held that the departmental enquiry was valid, natural‑justice principles were observed, and the dismissal order under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, was upheld.

Summary

L.S. Pandey, a Head Constable of the Central Reserve Police Force, was charged with negligence after two under‑trial Burmese prisoners escaped from his custody. A departmental enquiry was held, cancelled, and a fresh enquiry was conducted, resulting in a finding of neglect of duty under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 and his dismissal. Pandey challenged the dismissal by filing a writ petition under Article 32, alleging inadequate resources, procedural irregularities, and violation of natural‑justice principles. The respondents contended that Pandey was given full opportunity, the venue shift was to avoid delay, and no prejudice resulted. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, held that the enquiry complied with natural‑justice requirements, and affirmed the validity of the dismissal, noting only that mitigating circumstances might warrant a lesser sentence on representation. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the departmental enquiry and dismissal order under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, complied with the principles of natural justice.
Whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution can be entertained despite the presence of disputed questions of fact.
Whether the procedural irregularities alleged (venue shift, non‑examination of defence witnesses, cancellation of the first enquiry) vitiated the enquiry.
Whether the punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the alleged negligence.

Legislation cited

Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949s. 11

Subjects

natural justicedepartmental enquiryneglect of dutydismissalArticle 32CRPF Actprocedural fairnessproportionalityservice law

Judgment

LAXM! SHANKAR PANDEY
A
V.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
-
MARCH 19, 1991

B (S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K .. JAYACHANDRA
REDDY, JJ.] "

·Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32.-Scope of Judicial ~
Review-Disputed questions of fact-Examination of.

Service Law: Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949: Section
C · 11-Departmental enquiry-Head Constable-Negligent in duty- ~ -·
Escape of unqertrial prisoners from custody-Order of dismissal- _..
Validity OJ.

Natural Justice-Principles of. Departmental enquiry-Obser- y· -
D Vance/applicability of particular principle/rule-To be decided on the
facts and circumstances of each case.

The petitioner, a Head Constable in the Central Reserve Police
Force was charge-sheeted for negligence in his duty, resulting in the
escape of two undertrial prisoners, who were handed over to hint for
E custody. An enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, but later it J,
was cancelled and a fresh enquiry was commenced on the charges that
he allowed a Santry to leave the santry post without arranging proper

F
relief resulting in the escape of 2 undertrial prisoners; that he did not
take immediate action to report the matter to the Head Quarters; that
he connived the escape of the two undertrial prisoners; that he dug up a
tttnnel to make it appear that the two undertrial prisoners escaped
through the tunnel and that he did not hand over the guard duty roster
-
thus preventing its production as evidence.

Statement of some witnesses and that of the Petitioner were
recorded. Only one defence witness was examined. The Enquiry Officer
G submitted his report recommending disciplinary proceedings against
the petitioner. On the basis of the Report, a dismissal order was passed
against the. petitioner. The petitioner's appeal against the dismissal
order was dismissed by the appellate authority. Revision Petition pre:_ _)_
ferred by him also met the same fate. -..;;,. ..-

H In the present Writ Petition, challenging the dismissal order, the

894
L.S. PANDEY v. U.0.1 . 895
..
)oi(' petition~r cPntended that dpring the relevant tiqie, there was al:l!iolute
shortage of personnel, pon-supply of torch or candle or kerosene aild A
absence of proper arrangements to keep custody of the undertrial pri-
spners. It was also contended that all the defence witnesses cited by him
were not examined and that the enquiry was mala fide since the earlier
enquiry was dropped and he was exonerated.
B
The Respondents contended that no prejudice was caused to the
)...__ petitioner since full opportunity was afforded to him, that the venue of
the enquiry was shifted only ·to avoid unnecessary delay and the
petitioner never objected to it during the enquiry. As regards the first
~ _ _ ~ enquiry, it was 'contended that since the same was not completed and
-- later cancelled, fresh enquiry was ordered and it did not mean that the
petitioner was exonerated. c
Dismis.sing the Writ Petition, this Court,

HELD: I. It is unnecessary to examine the scope of Article 32 of
the Constitution in this case. Since the two undertrials were entrusted to D
the custody of the petitioner and they escaped, the responsibility was
entirely on the petitioner. No doubt, he pleaded that the arrangements
were inadequate and the two uildertrial prisoners took advantage, dug
a tunnel through which they managed to escape. The, Deputy
>-- Superintendent of Police who visited the premises inspected the same
and made a report in which he clearly observed that there was certainly E
some negligence in not noticing the activities of the undertrial prisoners

-- and therefore an enquiry was necessary. The Enquiry Officer, on the
basis of t:he oral and documentary evidence, concluded that the
petitioner committed an offence of neglect of duty and that he did not
take immediate action to report the matter to the Circle Officer. The
statements of PWs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 go to show that there was no F
~ tunnel at all when they reached the spot on hearing the alarm. It is in
the statement of PW 2 that he saw the petitioner digging the tunnel. In
view of these clear statements made by the PWs viz. the Constables who
were on duty alongwith the petitioner when the two undertrials
escaped, the Enquiry Officer was justified in recommending discipli-
nary action, and no prejudice was caused to the petitioner. [900D-H, 901A-B] G
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni Moopil Nayar v. The State of
Madras and Ors., [1959] (supp.) 2 SCR 316 and Smt. Ujjam Bai v. State
of Uttar Pradesh, (1963] 1 SCR 778, referred to.

2. Whether there was non-observance of any of the principles of H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991] 1 S.C.R.

natural justice in a given case and whether the same has resulted in
A
defecting the course of justice, and what principles of natural justice
should be applied in a given case depends on the facts and circums-
tances of that case. In the instance case, the petitioner has failed to
prove that the enquiry is vitiated in any manner whatsoever. [902H; 903A-B]
'
B Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen, (1964] 7 SCR 555; State
of Uttar Pradesh v. Om Prakash Gupta, (1969] 3 SCC 775; State Bank - \
of India v. R.K. Jain & Ors., (1972] 1 SCR 755; State of Andhra
Pradesh & Ors. v. Chitra Venkata Rao, (1976] 1 SCR 521; A.K.
Kraipak and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1969] 2 SCC 262; Capt. 1
Harish' Uppal v. Union of India and Ors., (1973] 3 SCC 319 and '---...(__ ...../
Khemchand v. Union of India, (1958] SCR 1981, referred to. ._
c
[Though the Petitioner's challenge to the dismissal order was
· negatived by the Court, appreciating the mitigating circumstances such y ·
as the petitioner's long service ot 20 y~ars in whkh he was performing
his duties diligently and bagging medals therefor, and that no act of
D negligence or misconduct was altributed to him earlier, the Court
observed that if the petitioner markes any representation, the autho-
rity concerned may consider the question of awarding a lesser
· sentence.]

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 974 of
E 1989.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

Gobinda Mukhoty, S.K. Bhattacharya and D.K. Garg for the
Petitioner.
F
K. Swamy, R. C. Kaushik (NP) for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
..
...
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. In this writ petition the
G petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Commandant, 11th
Battalion C.R.P.F., the 4th respondent, dismissing the petitioner __ .J,
from service. The petitioner was working as a Head-Constable in the
Central Reserve Police Force ("CRPF" for short) on the relevant
date. He joined as a Constable in the year 1963. He was awarded three
medals for performing his duty diligently and in the year 1967 he was
H given an award of Rs.500 and a special promotion while fighting ip)he
L.S. PANDEY v. U.0.1. [REDDY, J.) 897

Nagaland. He also claims to have been awarded some other such cash
A
awards later. He was promoted. as Head~Constable later on. In total h~
has put in 20 years of service. While working as Post Commander of
Vijaynagar Post Tirap District, two undertrial prisoners who were
Burmese nationals, were handed over on 29.3.83 till further orders bY'
the Circle Officer to the custody of the CRPF Vi jaynagar Post of which~
the petitioner was the Post Commander .. On the intervening night of· B
4th and 5th April, 1983 the two Burmese nationals escaped from the
custody. It was alleged that the petitioner was negligent in his duty and'
that he did not take immediate action to report the matter to the Circle'
Officer and that he also connived the escape of the two undertrial ·
-- -__.> prisoners and deliberately dug a tunnel to make it appear that the :
undertrial prisoners had dug the tunnel and escaped through the same.
On the basis of this incident, a chargesheet was served on 18th August, · C
1983 on the petitioner and an enquiry was conducted. The Deputy '
Superintendent of Police was the Enquiry Officer and he recorded the '
statements of some witnesses who were then posted under the
petitioner. That enquiry was cancelled and a fresh enquiry was com-
menced. Three charges were framed which are referred to as Articles D
in the report of the Enquiry Officer. These are as under:

"Article-I
No. 630110316 HC. L.S. Pandey of E Coy 11 Bn.
CRPF while functioning as post Commander of Vijay
Nagar post in Distt. Tirap (ACP) from 11/3/83 to 18/6/83 E

- and while functioning as Guard Commander of the Guard
post Vi jay nagar post in Distt. Tirap (ACP) on 5/4/83 com-
mitted an offence of remissness in his capacity as a member
of the force U/S 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that he
allowed No. 800210049 Ct Md Shamsher Alam to leave the
' '· ,J"' santry post at 0430 hrs without arranging proper relief ·,F
·~ which resulted in the escape of 2 UTPs from the prisoner
cell.

Article-II
That during the aforesaid period while functioning as G
\ post Commander and guard Commander at Vijay Nagar
)-----
post, the said No. 630110316 H.C. L.S. Pandey ofE Coy 11
Bn, CRPF committed an offence of neglect of duty in his
capacity as a member of the force U/S 11( 1) of CRPF Act,
1949 in that he did not take immediate action to report the
matter to the Circile Officer of Vi jay N agar and sent Crash H
898 SUPR.e,ME COl,JRT REPORTS. [19911 t s.c.R.

A M~.~~ to Bn. Hqrs. when the lJTPs wete fovndi miss.in~
fliOJ.11: ~lie UTPs cell at about 0500 hrs.. on 5/4/83. ·

Artiqw-Ill.r
That. during the aforesaid period while functioning as
B pqst/guard Commander of Vi jay Nagar post in Distt. Tirap
(A~P) the said No. 630110316 HC L.S. Pandey of E Coy 11
J}·n, CRI:'F commited an offence of gravemisconduct in his.
c;apacity as a member of the force U/S 11(1) of CRPF Act,
1949 in that he connived the escape of two UTPs and delib-
erately dug the tunnel to make it appear that the UTPs had:
dug the tumiyl and escaped through the tunnel. He did not
c handover the guard duty roster to next post Commander
No. 630040452 HC.B. Lakra thereby destroying the docu-
ments. to prevent its production as evidence."

Th~.statements of some of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter the
o deljnquent's statement also was recorded. The delinquent was again
.i,iven an opportunity to put forward his plea. He pleaded not guilty
apd the delinquent was asked to enter his defence by filing a written
s;tatement and also produce a list of defence witnesses. He accordingly
gave a list of defence witnesses and only one defence witnesses was
examined. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report holding that the
E delinquent connived the escape of the two undertrial prison~rs. and

-
then deliberately dug the tunnel to make it appears that the µn<;lertrial
wisoners dug the same and escaped and he accordingly recommendi;ii;l.
that the disciplinary proct:edings should be initiated aga~t th<;l
petitioner as well as against another Constable Mohd. Shamsher
Alam. On the basis of this report a dismissal order was passed (.lgain:;.t
F the petitioner on 30th June, 1984. The petitioner preferred an appeal
under Section 28 of the CRPF Rules to the Deputy Inspector General
of Police, CRPF, the appellate authority, but the same was dismissed
on 23rd October, 1984. A further revision filed by him to the Inspectoli
General of Police, CRPF was also dismissed on 2.5.86. During aU
these enquiries the plea of the petitioner had been that on 29.3.83; the
G two undertrial prisoners were entrusted late in the evening anc;J he W'l-S.
not given full strength of 40 Constables and that there were only 11
Constables and it was dark and raining heavily and that neither torches ---~'
nor candle sticks nor kerosene oil were available. There were also no
locks and stationary and there were no proper arrangements of th<;
building where the two undertrial prisoners could be kept in custody
H and he also sent a message that more persons should be depu~<;t !m.t: nQ
L.S. PANDEY v. U.0.1. [REDDY, J.] 899

steps were taken. With regard to the enquiry, his grievance has been
that suddenly area of enquiry was shifted from Khonsa to Logding 50 , A
kms. away and that all the defence witnesses cited by him were not
examined. He has also stated that the first enquiry was dropped and he '
was exonerated and on the whole the enquiry was not fair and not
according to the Rules and that the entire proceedings were ma/a fide
inasmuch as the first enquiry officer dropped the enquiry and B
exonerated the petitioner from all charges. In this writ petition also the
same submissions are put forward.

In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is
stated that full opportunity was given to the petitioner during the
departmental enquiry and that venue of enquiry was shifted from
Khonsa to Longding only to avoid unnecessary delay in the enquiry c
and that the petitioner never 9bjected to the shifting of the place of
enquiry. It is also submitted that the petitioner was given full
opportunity to produce the defence witnesses and notices were also
served on them but they did not appear. Regarding the first enquiry it
is stated that the same was not completed by the Enquiry Officer. D
Therefore a fresh enquiry was ordered and that it cannot be said that
by cancellation of the first enquiry the petitioner was exonerated. It is
further submitted that the petitioner was given full opportunity and
that he duly participated in the enquiry and no prejudice whatsoever
was caused.
·E

-
On a careful examination of the affidavit. and the counter-
affidavit and the allegations as well as the denials, we are of the
opinion that there are a number of disputed questions of fact. The
learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that under
Article 32 even disputed questions of fact can be gone into by this
Court. He relied on a judgment of this Court in Kavalappara F
Kottarathil Kochunni Moopil Nayar v. The State of Madras and Others,
[ 1959] Suppl. 2 SCR 316 where it is observed that:
-~
"Clause (2) of Art. 32 confers power on this Court to issue
- directions or orders or writs of various kinds referred to
therein. This Court may say that any particular writ asked G
for is or is not appropriate or it may say that the petitioner
has not established any fundamental right or any breach
thereof and accordingly dismiss the petition. In both cases
this Court· decides the petition on merits. But we do not
countenance the proposition that, on an application under
Art. 32, th~s Court may decline to entertain the same on the H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R.

simple ground that it involves the determination of dis- ·~
A puted questions of fact or on any other ground. If we were
to accede to the aforesaid contention of learned counsel,
we would be failing in our duty as the custodian and pro-
tector of the fundamental rights. We are not unmindful of
the fact that the view that this Court is bound to entertain a
B petition under Art. 32 and to decide the same on merits
may encourage litigants to file many petitions under Art. ...I.
32 instead of proceeding by way of a suit. Butthat consi- ----.....,
deration cannot, by itself, be a cogent reason for denying
the fundamental right of a person to approach this Court\
for the enforcement of his fundamental right which may, '- --...:__....
prima facie, appear to have been infringed. Further, ques- .,.
c tions of fact can and very often are dealt with on
affidavits."
'
In support of the same proposition, the learned counsel for the
petitioner also relied on the decision of this Court in Smt. Ujjam Bai v.
D State of Uttar Pradesh, [1963] 1SCR778.

Having carefully examined the entire records and the submis-
sions made, we do not think that it is necessary to examine the scope of
Article 32 in this case. Since the petitioner who has been in service for
20 years has been dismissed, we thought fit even to examine the vari- '°"""
E ous statements of the witnesses examined and their statements clearly
establish the charges framed against the petitioner. That apart undis-
putedly the two Burmese nationals were entrusted to the custody of
the petitioner and they escaped and the responsibility entirely lies with
the petitioner who was the Post Commander of Vijaynagar Post. No
doubt, he pleaded that the arrangements were inadequate and the two
F undertrial prisoners took advantage, dug a tunnel through which they
managed to escape. The Dy'. Superintendent of Police who visited the . _:If/'
premises inspected the same and made a report and in the said report
he clearly observed that there was certainly some negligence on the
part of CRPF men for not noticing the activities of the undertrial
prisoners and therefore an enquiry was necessary. In the enquiry
G report the statements of the witnesses namely the Constables who
were on duty are referred to in detail and it is held that the petitioner /
was the Guard Commander till 5.4.83. The Enquiry Officer has also~·
referred to the records in this regard and on the basis of the oral and
documentary evidence, he concluded that the petitioner committed an
offence of neglect of duty and that he did not take immediate action to
H report the matter to the Circle Officer: What is more the statements of
L.S. PANDEY v. U.0.1. [REDDY, J.) 901

>< PWs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 go to show that there was no tunnel at all
A
when they reached the spot on hearing the alarm. It is in the statement
of PW 2 that he saw the petitioner digging the tunnel. In view of these
clear statements made by the Constables who were on duty alongwith
the petitioner when the two Burmese nationals escaped, the Enquiry
Officer was justified in recommending disciplinary action. Urider these
circumstances, we see no force in the submission that the enquiry was Br
not properly conducted and that prejudice was caused to the petitioner.
~
After having perused all the records carefully, we are unable to
find any clinching circumstances on the basis of which it can be said
_... -
-- that the petitioner was not negligent in discharge of his duties and that
he did not commit any act of misconduct. On the other hand we find
that the statements of PWs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 coupled with that of
PW 2 falsify the plea of the petitioner that the undertrial prisoners
c'

themselves dug the tunnel and managed to escape.
""' As already mentioned the learned counsel also submitted that
the enquiry is vitiated inasmuch as proper opportunity was not given to D
the petitioner as all the defence witnesses were not examined and that
place of hearing was shifted because of which the witnesses could not
be produced and that the cancellation of the first enquiry amounted to
exoneration. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the
~- petitioner, the impugned order of dismissal should be quashed as there
is a clear violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles E
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In this context he relied on
... decisions of this Court in Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen,
[ 1964] 7 SCR 555; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Om Prakash Gupta, [1969]
3 SCC 775; State Bank of India v. R.K. Jain & Ors., [1972] 1 SCR 755
and State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Chitra Venkata Rao, [1976] 1
SCR 521. In all these cases it is laid down that such enquiries must be F
'~ conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and that
a reasonable opportunity to deny the guilt and to cross-examine the
witnesses produced and examined, should be given and that the
enquiry should be consistent with the rules of natural justice and in
conformity with the statutory rules prescribing the· mode of enquiry.
We have already referred to the details of enquiry conducted in the G
instant case and we are unable to say that there was any violation of
\__,_ principles of natural justice. It is, however, urged that in these matters
merely following the rules in the procedure established is not enough,
but the principles of natural justice must also necessarily be followed.
What this Court in a number of cases has observed is that what particu-
lar rule of natural justice should apply· to a given case depends to a "H
,
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1991] 1 S.C.R.

great extent on the facts and circumstances of the case. Reliance has
A
also been placed on some of the decisions of this Court. In A. K.
Kraipak and Others v. Union of India and Others, [1969] 2 SCC 262 it
is pointed out that:

"Para 20. The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure
B justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of
justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered
by any law validly made. In other words they do not sup-
plant the law of the land but supplement it.

xx xx
c What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a
given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and
circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under y
which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tri-
bunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose.
D Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some
principle of natural justice had been contravened the court
has to decide whether the observance of that rule was
necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case."

In Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India and Others, [1973] 3 SCC 319
E the contention was that before confirming the sentence by the court-

-
material under the Army Act, an opportunity should have been given
to the delinquent officer. In respect of this contention is observed that:

"to insist that the confirming authority should give a hearing
to the petitioner before it confirmed the sentence passed by
the Court Martial is a contention which cannot be accepted.
To accept this contention would mean that all the procedure ~ -
laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure should be
adopted in respect of the Court Martial, a contention which
cannot be accepted in the face of the very clear indications in
the Constitution that the provisions which are applicable to
G all the civil cases are not applicable to cases of Armed
Personnel."
(emphasis supplied) ~

As observed in Khemchand v. Union of India, [1958] SCR 1081 to
which there is a reference in .some of the decisions cited above all that
H the courts have to see is whether there was non-observance of any of
L.S. PANDEY v. U.0.1. (REDDY, J.) 903

those principles in a given case and whether the same has resulted in
·defecting the cour~e of justice and that what principles of natural
justice should be applied in a given case depends on the facts and
circumstances of that case (vide State of Uttar Pradesh v. Om Prakash
Gupta, [ 1969] 3 SCC 775. In our view even applying all these principles
the petitioner has failed to prove that the enquiry is vitiated in any
manner. B

The last submission of the learned counsel is that the punishment
of dismissal is wholly disproportionate to the alleged act of miscon-
duct. We are unable to go. to the extent of holding that the punishment

-
' ·-..._.... by way of dismissal is arbitrarily awarded. But there are certain
mitigating circumstances. The petitioner joined as a Constable in the
year 1963 and he was awarded medals for performing his duties dili-
c
gently. He has put in 20 years of service and no act of negligence or
misconduct is attributed to him at any time before during this long
service. Under these circumstances if the petitioner makes any rep-
resentation the concerned authority may consider the question of
awarding a lesser sentence. With the above observations the writ peti- D
tion is dismissed.

G.N. Petition dismissed.

-

'