The Rajasthan High Court described the termination of a CRPF worker-employed as a Dhobi-over alcohol use and workplace misconduct as “shockingly disproportionate” to the offense, violating the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. Justice Ashok Kumar Jain ruled that such severe penalties, including dismissal, apply only to grave misconduct.
Judge Ashok Kumar Jain stated that being part of a disciplined organization does not justify denying an employee a fair chance to defend themselves during disciplinary actions. The court ruled that the authorities acted hastily and arbitrarily, which constituted a significant abuse of authority.
The petitioner argued that the principles of natural justice had been violated, as he was not provided with the statement of witnesses, nor given an opportunity to be heard. The petitioner also argued that the dismissal was highly disproportionate to the misconduct.
The decision to dismiss the employee from service, effectively ending their livelihood, was deemed excessive. The court reviewed the case timeline and concluded that the Commandant rushed the process, failing to provide the employee an adequate opportunity to be heard, particularly since the medical report did not support the allegations.
The employee, working as a Dhobi for the CRPF, faced a complaint for drinking alcohol on duty and misconducting himself with coworkers. Found guilty under Section 10(n) of the Act, he was sentenced to 10 days of simple imprisonment in quarter guards.
During this imprisonment, he was served a show cause notice, with a requirement to submit a reply the very next day. On account of being imprisoned, the petitioner was not able to submit any response, and he was suspended from service and eventually dismissed.
The entire sequence of events and the material along with the provision as referred indicate that without giving a proper opportunity to defend himself, an order of dismissal of service has been passed against the petitioner. The petitioner was in custody on the date of service of notice and ultimately no reply has been filed, which is sufficient to demonstrate that no opportunity of hearing was granted.
Consequently, the dismissal order was overturned, and the employee was ordered reinstated with all associated benefits.
The Court‘s decision was a result of the petition filed by the petitioner, represented by Mr. Tanmay Dhand with Mr. Suraj Dixit and Mr. Sumit Sharma. The respondents were represented by Mr. Rakesh Choudhary.