Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Mohd. Rafi - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Inspector General, CRPF - Respondent
W.P.(C) 9854 of 2021& CM Appls. 30337-338 of 2021
Decided On : 08-09-2021
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Disciplinary Actions
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Requirement of notice - While Departmental proceedings are validly initiated, an employee must ensure compliance with leave protocols, and any personal circumstances should be addressed during hearings. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner's removal from service was based on continuous unauthorized absence from duty since June 2016, citing mental health issues stemming from familial disputes. He sought reinstatement with back wages and claimed disproportionate punishment.
Findings of Court:
The court found no basis for overturning the removal as the petitioner was responsible for his absence and should have reported or sought leave extension.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the petitioner's claim of improper notice for rejoining and the proportionality of the punishment given his circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that compliance with reporting for duty is fundamental; personal issues do not absolve one from responsibilities as a member of CAPFs.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's removal from service challenged. (Para 2) |
| 2. defense based on absence due to personal issues. (Para 3) |
| 3. petitioner violated duty to report back. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. writ petition dismissed. (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J.: (Oral)--The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11th June, 2019 issued by the Respondent No. 1 and order dated 08th August, 2017 issued by the Respondent No.2,whereby the Petitioner was removed from service.Petitioner also seeks reinstatement of service with full back wages and other consequential benefits.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Petitioner was not served with any notice asking him to rejoin his duty or regarding initiation of departmental proceedings for the alleged misconduct of overstaying on sanctioned leave.He further states that the punishment of removal from service for alleged misconduct of continuous absence from duty with effect from 06th June, 2016 awarded under Section 11 (1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 is highly disproportionate.He states that the Petitioner over stayed his leave due to his mental condition and subsequent illness caused due to the matrimonial cases instituted by the Petitioner's wife against him before the family court, Moradabad and the removal of the Petitioner's minor children from his custody.
4. This Court is of the view that the petitioner, who is a member of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), was obliged to report back to duty after expiry of the leave. Respondents/CRPF was under no obligation in law to keep on issuing notices to invite the petitioner to re-join his service. Consequently,this Court is of the view that the petitioner has violated his solemn duty and responsibility to report back on time.
5. The factum of matrimonial dispute and illness could have been agitated before the Inquiry Officer. In any event the petitioner should have either reported back on time or sought extension of his leave--which he did not do in the present case. For long unauthorised absence from duty the punishment of dismissal of a CAPF personnel cannot be held to be per se disproportionate.
6. This matter calls for no interference in writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition along with pending applications is dismissed.
7. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
