Unauthorized absence without sufficient grounds and lack of credible explanation for medical illness can justify disciplinary action under the Central Reserve Police Force Act and Rules.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Petitioner impugns orders dated 08.10.2016, 21.02.2017 and 19.06.2017 whereby the petitioner has been removed from service after conduct of an inquiry and the statutory appeal and statutory revision filed by the petitioner have been dismissed respectively.

2. Petitioner was enrolled in the Central Reserve Police Force as Constable GD. Petitioner had some difficulties in his matrimonial life and accordingly, applied for leave for 2 months for sorting out the matrimonial issues. Petitioner proceeded on leave on 17.12.2014 and was to report back on 15.02.2015.

3. Petitioner failed to report back and on 02.03.2015 gave an application for extension of leave which was rejected on 15.03.2015. Petitioner even thereafter failed to report for duty and was declared a deserter and his arrest warrants were issued. Petitioner reported back to the unit on 28.04.2015 whereafter his warrants were cancelled. Petitioner was put on suspension on 29.04.2015 awaiting disciplinary proceedings and subsequently, by the impugned order dated 08.10.2016, petitioner has been removed from service.

4. It may be noticed that at the time of sanction of leave, petitioner was posted in Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir and the residence of the petitioner is in Najafgarh, New Delhi.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was facing matrimonial discord and had to approach the Court for grant of anticipatory bail and that he was suffering from illness and as such could not report back.

6. The Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the Commandant of 73 Bn., CRPF had noticed the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer. It may be pertinent to extract the rationale given by the Commanding Officer for imposing the punishment of removal from service. The Commanding Officer in order dated 08.10.2016, impugned herein, has recorded as under:

"In these 435 days, the accused personnel only contacted his company commander in the beginning and when the Company Commander did not extend his leave and instructed him to report back to his duty immediately, then the accused personnel did not contact any channel or any medium in any way. The accused says that he was ill for 435 days but the document he has presented has been written with the same ink. While changing the pen's ink on paper for long treatment is a normal process and the style of writing is not changed. During this time, neither accused was admitted to the Hospital nor advised for bed rest by the hospital, etc. nor did he advised not to travel. This type of documents has not been revealed. All documents are from a private hospital which is not a CGHS approved hospital. If the intention of the person was to report on duty, then he would have received the treatment in the available CH of CRPF or Deptt. Hospital in his city. He could report in the hospital or his treatment or get advice from hospital about his problem. But the personnel did not do this. It is completely clear that the accused knowingly remained absent from his duty. In addition, the accused had given in his statement dated 7.7.2016 during the departmental inquiry that he had submitted all the medical documents and he has no other documents with him - But after coming back from the leave of the personnel, the accused submitted his medical documents from March 2015 to January 2016 along with his representation dated 12.9.2016, all of which belong to the same private hospital. Personnel on 6.9.2016 to 13.9.2016, a total 6 days casual leave along with 12.9.16, 5.9.2016 and 4.9.2016 and 11.9.2016 being Sundays went on court hearing case of 12.9.16 as the reason for being present. There is no OPD number on any consultation papers, medicine receipts and test report of private hospital. While it is all in the same hospital, there is no stamp or signature of the hospital in test/receipts. On the advice of Anand Hospital from 1.3.15 to 6.3.15 on 2.3.15, only 1 injection has been written, whereas the receipt of the medi