The court upheld the dismissal of a constable for misconduct, emphasizing the importance of timely appeals and the supervisory nature of certiorari under Article 226.

ORDER :

(HARINATH N., J.)

The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 13.07.2001 issued by the 4^th respondent dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner is also challenging the proceedings dated 19.04.2006 and further proceedings dated 31.05.2011 passed by the respondents 2 and 3 respectively affirming the order of dismissal dated 13.07.2001.

2. The petitioner was working as a Constable in CISF (Central Industrial Security Force). On 14.11.2000, while the petitioner was on duty, he suffered with stomach pain and after informing his shift in-charge, the petitioner left for home, and his family members shifted him to his native place. Crime No.183 of 2000, which was registered for theft of Hybrid Micro Circuit with Kengari Police. The police recovered the Circuit, which valued Rs.1,40,000/- from K.U.Subarmani. The petitioner was also allegedly involved in the commission of theft as per the statement of K.U.Subarmani. Charge sheet dated 30.12.2000 was issued to the petitioner alleging misconduct and dereliction of duty resulting in theft of Hybrid Micro Circuit. A charge on unauthorized absence was also framed. An enquiry was conducted, and after calling for explanation on the enquiry report from the petitioner, the disciplinary authority passed orders of dismissal dated 13.07.2001.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner suffered with depression after coming to know of his dismissal. It is also submitted that the petitioner underwent treatment for depression for a considerable period of time and was found fit to rejoin duty and a certificate dated 01.03.2005 was issued by the doctor.

4. The petitioner filed an appeal on 30.05.2005 challenging the order of dismissal dated 13.07.2001. It is submitted that the 3^rd respondent has not considered the medical certificate and simply rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner vide proceedings dated 19.04.2006. It is submitted that the petitioner again underwent for treatment for depression from 2006 to 2011, and after recovering, submitted a revision petition to the 2^nd respondent on 14.03.2011. The 2^nd respondent rejected the revision vide proceedings dated 31.05.2011.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents ought to have considered the medical certificate submitted by the petitioner and also the medical condition of the petitioner before imposing the severe punishment of removal from service. It is also submitted that the petitioner, the first accused, was acquitted in a criminal case.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Rule 25 of the CCS Leave Rules, 1972, and submits that Rule 77 of CISF Rules 2001 would entitle the petitioner to rely on Rule 25 of CCS Leave Rules, 1972. As such, the petitioner, at the most, would have to be treated as on leave without permission, and such leave period ought to be treated as leave period without pay.

7. The learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner failed to inform anybody about his illness. It is also submitted that the petitioner was involved in theft of a Hybrid Micro Circuit worth Rs.1,40,000/- in connivance with one K.V.Subramani. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted an appeal against the order of dismissal after almost three years and ten months of passing the said order. It is submitted that as per Regulations of CISF, an appeal is to be preferred within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the final order. It is also submitted that the revision petition was also rejected as the petitioner failed to submit any concrete evidence of the illness with which the petitioner claims to have suffered with. It is also submitted that a detailed enquiry was conducted and the charges were found proved by the enquiry officer. It is submitted that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is just and falls for no interference from this Court.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Governmen