ORDER

1. HEARD COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

2. SPECIAL LEAVE GRANTED.

3. THE UNION OF INDIA HAS CHALLENGED THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY DATED 22-9-2004 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6954 OF 1998. IN THE AFORESAID WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN, THE HIGH F COURT ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION BY ITS IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DIRECTED THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT IN SERVICE BUT DENIED HIM BACK WAGES.

4. A FEW FACTS OF THE CASE MAY BE NOTICED AT THIS STAGE. THE RESPONDENT JOINED THE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (FOR SHORT "CRPF") AS A CONSTABLE ON 23-4-1986. HE APPLIED FOR LEAVE ON 16-6-1997 AND WAS ON LEAVE TILL 2-7-1997 WITH EXTENSIONS. HOWEVER, HE NEVER REPORTED FOR DUTY THEREAFTER. SEVERAL NOTICES WERE SENT TO HIM BUT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. EVEN THE ARREST WARRANT ISSUED AGAINST HIM REMAINED UNEXECUTED. AN INQUIRY WAS ORDERED AND AFTER INQUIRY, THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING WAS CONCLUDED AND AN ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY ON 2-11-1998 DISMISSING THE RESPONDENT FROM SERVICE. THE RESPONDENT THEREAFTER MOVED THE HIGH COURT AND THE HIGH COURT, BY ITS JUDGMENT AND ORDER AFORESAID, ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION OF THE H RESPONDENT AND ORDERED HIS REINSTATEMENT BUT DENIED HIM BACK WAGES. THE HIGH COURT INTERFERED ON THE GROUND THAT THE PUNISHMENT INFLICTED ON THE RESPONDENT WAS GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE MISCONDUCT ALLEGED.

5. EVEN IF THE HIGH COURT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PUNISHMENT INFLICTED WAS GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE MISCONDUCT ALLEGED, IT OUGHT TO HAVE REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER THE MATTER AS REGARDS THE PUNISHMENT TO BE INFLICTED, BUT THE HIGH COURT DID NOT CHOOSE TO DO SO. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR US TO DO SO SINCE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PUNISHMENT INFLICTED ON THE RESPONDENT IS NOT GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE MISCONDUCT ALLEGED.

6. ONE CANNOT IGNORE THE LARGE NUMBER OF CASES WHICH COME TO THIS COURT OF MEMBERS OF UNIFORMED FORCES REMAINING ABSENT FROM DUTY WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE EXPLANATION. WHENEVER ACTION IS TAKEN, THE USUAL PLEA TAKEN IS OF HAVING BEEN ILL OR SOME SUCH FALSE PRETEXT, AND EVEN FAKE OR FALSE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES ARE PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF SUCH A PLEA. WE WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN A SERIOUS VIEW OF THE MATTER HAD IT NOT BEEN A CASE OF A CONSTABLE BELONGING TO CRPF REMAINING ABSENT FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD. EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS SUFFERING FROM DEPRESSION AND WAS BEING TREATED AS AN OUTDOOR PATIENT, THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES PRODUCED BY HIM SHOW THAT HE WAS RESTORED TO NORMALCY ON 4-4-1998 YET THE RESPONDENT DID NOT CHOOSE TO REPORT FOR DUTY. THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS PASSED SEVEN MONTHS LATER I.E. ON 2-11-1998. THIS ITSELF DISCLOSES THE HOLLOWNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE RESPONDENT REGARDING MENTAL DEPRESSION AND IMBALANCE WHICH HE CLAIMS TO HAVE SUFFERED.

7. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON A JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN UNION OF INDIA V. GIRIRAJ SHARMAL, WHICH WAS ALSO A CASE OF A CONSTABLE EMPLOYED IN CRPF. IN THAT CASE THE RESPONDENT HAD BEEN PUNISHED BY AN ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR OVERSTAYING ON LEAVE BY 12 DAYS. THE HIGH COURT TOOK THE VIEW THAT FOR SUCH MISCONDUCT THE PUNISHMENT OF DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND WAS ALSO HARSH. THIS COURT, WHILE AGREEING WITH THE HIGH COURT, DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY HOLDING THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, INSTEAD OF A MAJOR PENALTY, A MINOR PENALTY WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT.

8. THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT A CASE OF A CONSTABLE MERELY OVERSTAYING HIS LEAVE BY 12 DAYS. THE RESPONDENT TOOK LEAVE FROM 16-6-1997 AND NEVER REPORTED FOR DUTY THEREAFTER. INSTEAD HE FILED A WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT IN WHICH THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED. MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED FORCES CANNOT ABSENT THEMSELVES ON FRIVOLOUS PLEAS, HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE DUTIES ENJOINED ON THESE FORCES. SUCH INDISCIPLINE, IF IT GOES UNPUNISHED, WILL GREATLY AFFECT THE DISCIPLINE OF THE FORCES. IN SUCH FORCES DESERTION IS A SERIOUS MATTER. CASES OF THIS NATURE, IN WHAT