Jharkhand HC Upholds Dismissal of CRPF Jawan for Cowardice and Weapon Negligence
Case No: W.P. (S) No. 3005 of 2022
By Sandhya kaika
The High Court of Jharkhand has dismissed a writ petition filed by Tarkeshwar Bharti, a former CRPF Constable, challenging his dismissal following a ghastly 2001 shooting incident in Kamrup, Assam. The court ruled that “cowardice” and the failure of a soldier to protect their weapon are grounds for the highest disciplinary action.
The case dates back to an occurrence where Constable Harbhajan Singh snatched Bharti’s service weapon and used it to gun down their Assistant Commandant, Shri S.K. Sardar. While the assailant walked out of the camp unimpeded, Bharti remained a “mute and silent spectator,” failing to take back his weapon, alert the guard commander, or attempt to stop the culprit.
Bharti’s legal counsel argued that the petitioner was a victim of discrimination. They contended that while 100 other armed personnel in the camp also failed to stop the assailant, eight others were reinstated with lesser punishments. The petitioner sought parity, claiming his misconduct was no different from those who were let off.
Justice Ananda Sen rejected the plea for parity, emphasizing that Bharti’s case was fundamentally different. The court noted:
It was Bharti’s specific weapon that was snatched due to his inaction, providing the means for the murder.
A trained soldier is expected to protect their arms and react to rescue a commander; Bharti’s failure to do so amounted to “abetting the offender” in his escape.
Citing Supreme Court precedents (P. Gunasekaran and Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank), the Court reminded that it cannot act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence unless the punishment “shocks the conscience”.
The Court concluded that the punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. Finding no merit in the claim of “similarity” with other personnel, the High Court upheld the CRPF’s 2021 order and dismissed the writ petition.
”The unfortunate incident of killing could not have taken place but for the inaction on the part of the petitioner.”
