Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Mohd. Rafi – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Inspector General, CRPF – Respondent
| 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 a
A member of Central Armed Police Forces is obligated to report back to duty timely, as absence without leave can justify removal from service regardless of personal circumstances.
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.
Dismissal from service upheld due to prolonged unauthorized absence and insufficient justification for the leave; reinstatement denied as the petitioner failed to comply with mandatory communication ....
Regularization of unauthorized absence as Extraordinary Leave without salary precludes the continuation of disciplinary proceedings and consideration of the petitioner's long and clean service record....
Unauthorized absence from duty in a disciplined paramilitary force constitutes grave misconduct; disciplinary proceedings conducted ex-parte following the employee's failure to respond to legitimate ....
The Commandant has the discretion to impose dismissal or removal from service for misconduct under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act.
The obligation to report for duty is paramount; without sufficient proof of personal hardships, a member's unauthorized absence justifies dismissal under the BSF Act.
The court upheld the punishment of removal from service for unauthorised absence without sanctioned leave, emphasizing the competence of the disciplinary authority and the established misconduct.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
