The court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the rules and that the punishment imposed should be proportionate to the misconduct. The court also highlighted the importance of communication and cooperation with the department in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

“(i) To quash the Enquiry Report held against the petitioner based on the Memorandum of Charge dated 10.6.2009 being contrary to the relevant service rules and settled position of law;

(ii) To set aside impugned order dated 27.11.2009 removing the petitioner from service, order dated 25/26.4.2010 upholding the decision of the Disciplinary Authority and ordered for punishment of Compulsory Retirement and order dated 16.9.2011 passed by the Revisioning Authority having passed arbitrarily and against the relevant rules and under Article 311 of the Constitution of India;

(iii) To allow all the consequential benefits arising out of quashing the impugned orders as aforesaid;

(iv) To all cost of litigation.”

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed in the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as “CISF”) as Sub-Inspector in the year 1988. Upon appointment, the petitioner was detailed for Basic Training Course in CISF, RTC, Barwaha (MP) which he completed successfully. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the Rank of Inspector (Exe.) along with his batchmates.

3. The petitioner while serving at CISF Unit, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh was transferred to CISF Unit, NDRF Battalion, Mundali (Orissa) vide FHQrs, New Delhi SO No. 204/2008 dated 13.05.2008 and during the joining time period, the petitioner was at Delhi with his family when he met with an accident which resulted in an orthopaedic problem in his lower back (spine) due to which he could not proceed to join his new place of posting i.e., CISF Unit, NDRF Battalion, Mundali, (Orissa). In this regard, he gave the requisite information vide FAX dated 12.07.2008 to the DIG, CISF Unit, BSP Bhilai, his Disciplinary Authority.

4. Petitioner was instructed by respondent No. 4/The Deputy Inspector General that he should inform about his medical problem to respondent No. 5 as he stood relieved from CISF Unit, BSP, Bhilai. It is claimed that the said advice of the respondent No. 5 was unwarranted and contrary to the laid down policy followed by the Office of respondent No. 2. As per the policy, so long as the petitioner had not reported to his new Unit, he remained under the administrative and disciplinary control of respondent No. 4 which happened to be his relieving unit.

5. The petitioner has claimed that he thereafter, got involved in false civil and criminal cases filed against him and his family by his relatives, due to land and other family disputes, to the extent that his own uncle physically assaulted his mother, wife and children. Failing to get necessary assistance from the local police of Jhajjar, District Haryana who were hand in glove with the criminals, the petitioner had to approach National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), New Delhi for protection against the atrocities of the police. NHRC took cognizance and after the fact-finding enquiry, issued Notice dated 01.05.2009 to Inspector General Police, Rohtak Range and Superintendent, Police, Jhajjar with the directions to hold an enquiry into the same, but no cogent action was taken by them.

6. Moreover, the petitioner, in addition to the orthopaedic problems, developed serious mental depression and other multiple problems. He remained under medical rest from 12.07.2008 onwards and was treated in various Multi-speciality Government Hospitals in Delhi.

7. On 14.11.2008, the petitioner sent a letter to the respondent No. 4 through registered post and also endorsed the same to respondent No. 5 giving complete history of his case along with the medical documents and the medical certificates.

8. It is asserted that no leave, particularly leave on the basis of Medical Certificates issued by the Government hospital, was sanctioned by the respondent No. 4 even though the petitioner had enough leaves in his