In a recent judgment by the Delhi High Court, the dismissal of Constable GD Baldev Gujela following a CRPF departmental inquiry has been upheld. The court rejected the petitioner’s appeal and affirmed the penalty of dismissal imposed by the competent authority. This case highlights the importance of upholding discipline and accountability within the CRPF. Stay tuned for more updates on this significant legal development.
Facts
- The departmental inquiry was conducted following all the rules and regulations
- The investigating officer followed all the instructions and guidelines during the inquiry
- The proceedings of the departmental investigation were carefully studied
- The statements of the prosecution witnesses and evidence/documents were thoroughly considered
Analysis
- The accused Personnel, Constable/GD Baldev Gujela, did not cooperate during the investigation process.
- No action could be taken to admit or not admit the mistake on the part of the accused due to his absence.
- Any medal or decoration received by the accused during his service period will be confiscated as per CRPF Act 1949.
- The health card issued to the accused is cancelled with immediate effect and the cost of the card is to be recovered from his dues.
- The identity card issued to the Personnel is also cancelled immediately.
- The accused remained absent for 391 days without a valid reason.
- The accused did not defend himself during the proceedings which were ex parte.
- The charges against the accused are proved beyond doubt and he deserves punishment.
- Absence of 391 days is regularized as DIES NON.
- Remaining amount to be recovered from the accused will be taken from his payable amount and deposited in the government treasury.
- Kit items issued to the accused will be classified, and if any shortage is found, recovery will be made from his dues.
- The accused, being a member of a highly disciplined force, is not fit to be retained in CRPF due to the seriousness of the offense committed.
- The petitioner did not avail the remedy of appeal before the competent authority
- The Commandant of 71 Bn., CRPF imposed the penalty of dismissal on the petitioner based on the report and other directions
- The penalty of dismissal was considered as the only alternative by the competent authority
Decision
- Representations made by the Petitioner were dismissed.
- The representations made to the competent authority did not contest the findings of the investigating authority on merit.
- The court found no merit in the petition.
Case Title: BALDEV GUJELA, Vs. CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE AND ORS (2024:DHC:4047-DB)
Case Number: W.P.(C)-7128/2024
