The court emphasized the limited power of judicial review in determining the quantum of punishment and upheld the disciplinary action under CISF Rules 1969.

S. L. BHAYANA, J.

( 1 ) BY way of this writ petition, the Petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus for setting aside the orders dated 13. 05. 1992 and 26. 05. 1995, issued by the Respondents, whereby the Petitioner was removed from service on the grounds of grave misconduct, indiscipline and carelessness.

( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the Petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 19. 05. 1989 in the Central Industrial Security Force (for short 'cisf') in the Sports Quota. The Petitioner submitted that on 20. 09. 1991 he had applied for two days Earned leave and 20 days Half Pay Leave from 03. 10. 1991 to 24. 10. 91 on the ground that his wife was in a family way. The said leave was sanctioned by the Company commander but later on refused by the higher authorities. The question was that the leave during this period was unauthorized as the higher authorities did not grant the sanction. On 06. 11. 1991 Petitioner?s wife delivered a male child in the state of delirium. The Petitioner proceeded on further leave on medical grounds for a period from 31. 10. 1991 to 01. 11. 1991 but did not submit any medical fitness certificate on 02. 11. 1991 and thereafter absented himself from duty. The Petitioner was found absent by the Respondents since 14. 11. 1991 and there was no satisfactory explanation to justify his absence.

( 3 ) ON 11. 02. 1992, the Respondents issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner on the ground of his unauthorized absence from service and the allegations of misconduct were levied against the Petitioners for non-production of Medical Fitness Certificate on 02. 11. 1991. The Petitioner had remained absent continuously from duty w. e. f. 14. 11. 1991. Secondly, the Petitioner was in the habit of absenting himself from service without any prior permission or information. He was informed that if he does not submit any written reply on or before the due date an enquiry under Rule 34 of CISF Rules 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'cisf Rules') would be proceeded ex-parte against the Petitioner.

( 4 ) ON 09. 03. 1992 Enquiry Officer was appointed by Respondent No. 4 to conduct the Departmental Enquiry, under CISF Rules that deals with major penalty proceedings against the Petitioner. After conducting enquiry in accordance with law and after giving opportunity, the Petitioner was held guilty of grave misconduct by remaining absent from service without prior permission. The findings of the Enquiry Officer was duly sent to the Petitioner by the disciplinary Authority vide communication dated 16. 04. 1992 with the stipulation that he may submit his representation against the same within 15 days from the receipt of the said communication. The Petitioner did not submit any written reply, therefore, statutory punishment was awarded to the Petitioner and he was ordered to be removed from service w. e. f. 13. 05. 1992.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED of the order dated 13. 05. 1992, the Petitioner filed an application dated 28. 11. 1994 before Respondent No. 3,. e. Director General, CISF for reinstatement. On 26. 05. 1995, the Appellate Order was passed reiterating the findings, as there was no merit in the application. The application was rejected and the Petitioner was held guilty on the ground of grave indiscipline and carelessness.

( 6 ) FURTHER aggrieved, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition for setting aside the orders dated 26. 05. 1995 and 13. 05. 1992 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and fundamental rights as the punishment of removal has been inflicted without application of mind by the authorities and disproportionate to the misconduct.

( 7 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner argued that the punishment awarded to the Petitioner is not commensurate with the charges of misconduct levelled against the Petitioner. The Respondents failed to appreciate

Click Here to Read the rest of this document