Unauthorized absence from duty, failure to abide by leave application directions, and pre-planned leave without proper sanction constitute gross indiscipline, misconduct, and dereliction of duty under CISF Rules, leading to disciplinary action.

JUDGMENT :

(Suresh Kumar Kait, J.) : —

The petitioner, who is working as ASI/Exe in Central Industrial Security Force (‘CISF’) and posted at Mumbai Airport, has filed the present petition seeking setting aside of order dated 17.07.2018 passed by respondent No. 4-Senior Commandant, CISF; order dated 24.10.2018 passed by respondent No. 3-Deputy Inspector General (DIG), CISF and order dated 22.03.2019 passed by respondents No. 2-Inspector General (IG), CISF.

2. The rationale behind the aforesaid orders is that on 08.02.2018 petitioner had applied for earned leave w.e.f. 20.02.2018 till 06.03.2018 on the ground of his engagement. The competent authority vide communication dated 09.02.2018 asked the petitioner to apply for leave under casual leave category instead of earned leaves. The petitioner claims to have accordingly modified his leave application on 10.02.2018 and applied for casual leave for the aforesaid period. The petitioner claims to have booked flight ticket in advance on the said day i.e. 10.02.2018 from Chennai to Jaipur for 19.02.2018 with return flight 06.03.2018.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved that the competent authority instead of any assurance to grant leave, issued an unusual direction to the petitioner on 17.02.2018 to first attend the parade and then apply for the leave. The petitioner has averred that the competent authority did not reject his application but directed him to apply for leave after 23.02.2018 with joining before 08.03.2018 and there was no confirmation of grant of leave even after 23rd onward.

4. The petitioner thereafter once again applied for leave on 19.02.2018 but having no response, petitioner made a request to the Sr. Commandant of Chennai Division for personal hearing, as he had booked his flight for 19.02.2018 ten days ago, on oral assurance of leave. On 19.02.2018, the said authority granted permission to the petitioner for personal hearing.

5. On the same day i.e. 19.02.2018, petitioner personally met the Deputy Commandant (Admn) with request to sanction leave, however, he was asked to apply for leave from 23rd onwards, without giving any assurance for sanction of the same. On the persistence of petitioner, petitioner's request letter was sent to the superior authority, who also recommended for sanction of leave from 23rd onwards. Since tickets were already booked for 19.02.2018, the petitioner after orally informing all his senior officers as well as in writing to the concerned jurisdictional police station about his travel, left for his native village at Rajashthan. The petitioner also claims to have requested the concerned authority vide e-mail dated 20.02.2018 for sanction of his leave, but the appropriate authority directed the petitioner to join duty with immediate effect by treating the absence from 20.02.2018 as absconding.

6. According to petitioner, he got engaged on 28.02.2018 at his native village in Rajasthan. The competent authority vide communication dated 02.03.2018 again directed the petitioner to join the duty, threatening disciplinary action against him. The petitioner reported back to duty on 7.03.2018 at the place of his posting i.e. Chennai Airport in accordance with his planned and applied leave till 06.03.2018.

7. The petitioner was issued a Charge Memorandum dated 14.03.2018, under Rule-36 of CISF Rules, 2011 by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Senior Commandant, proposing to hold an enquiry on the charge of remaining absent from duty from 20.02.2018 till 06.03.2018, which amounted to gross indiscipline, misconduct and dereliction of duty. The petitioner acknowledged the Charge Memorandum and submitted a reply dated 22.03.2018 denying the charge against him. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry proceedings submitted the Enquiry Report dated 11.06.2018 to the Senior Commandant of Chennai Division holding the article of charge proved.

8. The Disciplinary Authority agreeing with the findings of th