Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 1077
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
INDIRA BANERJEE & V. KAMESWAR RAO, JJ.
TEK CHAND - Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. - Respondents
WP (C) 9853 of 2015
Decided On : 03-04-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. L.R. Khatana, Mr. Sudhir Naagar and Mr. Vijay, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Ms. Jyoti Dutt Sharma and Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed, Advocates with Mr. S.S. Sejwal, (Law Officer).
Desertion and absence without leave are serious offenses, and the court's scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited.
Headnote:
Desertion - Central Reserve Police Force - Indian Penal Code, Section 498A/504/506, CRPF Act - The court discussed the petitioner's desertion from duty, the disciplinary proceedings, and the legal principles governing disciplinary actions in the CRPF Act and Indian Penal Code. The court emphasized the seriousness of desertion and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a constable in the CRPF, was removed from service for desertion and absence without leave. The petitioner challenged the removal order, appeal dismissal, and revisional application rejection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner guilty of desertion and absence without leave, leading to the petitioner's removal from service. The court emphasized the seriousness of the offense and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's desertion, absence without leave, disciplinary proceedings, and the legality of the removal from service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that desertion and absence without leave are serious offenses, and the punishment of removal was not disproportionate. The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the petitioner's removal from service for desertion and absence without leave.
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, a Constable of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) has challenged an order dated 16.06.2014 of the Disciplinary Authority, whereby the petitioner was removed from service, the order dated 05.12.2014 of the Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid order of removal was dismissed, and an order dated 22.04.2015 of the Revisional Authority, whereby the Revisional application of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was appointed a constable in the CRPF on 10.06.2006. According to the petitioner he had got married in 2004, about two years before he joined service.
3. After completing his basic training, the petitioner was posted at:
(i) G.C. Gwalior from 18.2.2006 till 28.2.2008,
(ii) 65 battalion from 01.03.2008 till 20.7.2011,
(iii) 89 battalion from 21.78.2011 till 31.07.2011, and,
(iv) A-89, COY.
4. It is alleged that the matrimonial life of the petitioner was filled with discord. There were serious disputes and differences between the petitioner and his wife, for which the petitioner had to leave his wife at her parental home.
5. The petitioner claims that some time later, in 2008, the petitioner took leave of two months to fetch his wife from his parental home. However, on the complaint of his wife’s family members, the petitioner was arrested for offences under Sections 498A/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code and kept in jail for 21 days.
6. It appears that while the petitioner was posted at A-89 COY, that is in Delhi and was on duty at Rohini Jail, the petitioner applied for, and was granted earned leave of 35 days. The petitioner returned from leave on 09.11.2013.
7. However, on 16.11.2013, the petitioner again requested for leave of a further period of 25 days to attend a court case at Aligarh Court, which had been listed for hearing on 18.11.2013.
8. It appears that the Assistant Commandant of A-89, COY told the petitioner that since he had reported only on 09.11.2013, after long leave of 35 days, and there were pending leave applications of other CRPF personnel, he could not be granted leave of 25 days. Aligarh being 2-3 hours away from Delhi, the petitioner was informed that he could avail one day’s leave to attend his Court case in Aligarh.
9. According to the respondents, the petitioner deserted his post without information on 16.11.2013 itself. The petitioner neither intimated the authority concerned, nor obtained its approval.
10. By a letter No.D-V-I/2013-A/89 dated 01.12.2013, the Company Commander, A-89 COY, directed the petitioner to report back to duty. The letter of 01.12.2013, was preceded by two other letters one dated 19.11.2013 and the other dated 27.11.2013.
11. The respondents also lodged an FIR against the petitioner at Samaipur, P.S. Badli, Delhi, on 17.11.2013, complaining that the petitioner had deserted his posting at Rohini Jail.
12. Since the petitioner did not report for duty, a Court of Enquiry was ordered by an office order No. LX 20/2013/89-EC-II dated 07.12.2013 and Shri Lalit Kishore, D.C. was appointed as Presenting Officer.
13. On the recommendation of the Court of Enquiry, a Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the petitioner to enquire into the charges of desertion/absence from the Camp at Rohini Jail.
14. In response to the memorandum of charges issued on 15.02.2014, the petitioner submitted an application wherein he admitted to have left the post without proper and due sanction of leave from the authorities and asked to be forgiven for the same.
15. The petitioner participated in the Departmental Enquiry. After evaluation of the proceedings and analysis of the statements of the petitioner and other prosecution witnesses, the petitioner was found guilty of committing a grave offence and an act of misconduct by leaving the Camp and remaining absent from duty without sanction and permission of the Competent Authority.
16. For disobedience of orders and carelessness in performance o
