IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT
SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.
No.971420374 Constable/GD Sri Santosh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India - Respondent
W.P(C) NO.78452015
Decided on : 13-05-2024
Dismissal - Service Dispute - CRPF Act, 1949, Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Constable/GD in CRPF, was dismissed from service due to unauthorized absence. The petitioner claimed illness prevented resuming duties, while the authorities alleged willful absence.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found the petitioner's absence unauthorized but noted the illness. It directed the authorities to reconsider the punishment imposed, deeming dismissal as harsh.
Issues: Unauthorized absence, illness as a mitigating factor, procedural compliance, and proportionality of punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that while unauthorized absence is serious, the punishment should be proportionate and directed the authorities to reconsider the punishment imposed.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, directing the authorities to impose a punishment other than dismissal within 60 days.
JUDGMENT :
The writ petitioner, who was appointed as a Constable/GD in Central Reserve Police Force(CRPF)on 01.01.1997 bearing No. 971420374, is before this Court challenging his dismissal from service pursuant to orders passed by the disciplinary authority following an enquiry instituted against the petitioner. At the relevant point in time, the petitioner was posted at 36 Battalion, CRPF, Khonsa in the district of Tirap, Arunachal Pradesh. With effect from 10.01.2011, the petitioner applied for and was granted 15 days casual leave for arranging his sister’s marriage in his native place in the district of Saharsa in Bihar. Because of some domestic problems which arose during his period of casual leave, he applied for sanction of further 45 days of earned leave. The Commandant of 36 Battalion, CRPF, Khonsa in the district of Tirap, Arunachal Pradesh sanctioned 60 days earned leave and cancelled the earlier 15 days casual leave. According to the petitioner that although his leave expired on 10.03.2011 and he was required to resume duties from 11.03.2011, but because of illness that he had suffered during the first week of March, 2011, he could not proceed to his battalion to resume his duties.
2. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he was under treatment from 04.03.2011 to 12.08.2011 and due to further illness suffered, the petitioner was again under medical treatment upto 22.03.2012. According to the petitioner, he intimated the department about his illness and treatment and his inability to join due to the illness by sending letters through speed post. After recovery from his illness, as per the petitioner, he reported for resumption of his duties on 03.04.2012 (AN) and submitted his application on 04.04.2012 along with all medical certificates, cash memos of medicines, pathological reports etc before the Commandant, 36thBattalion, CRPF, Khonsa, in the district of Tirap, Arunachal Pradesh. However, the petitioner was informed that a departmental enquiry contemplated against the petitioner is in the advance stage and hence his application for resumption of duty was refused to be accepted. Subsequently, the petitioner came to be aware that he was declared a deserter with effect from 11.03.2011 vide office Order No. 1-10-16/2011-36-Estt-2 dated 04.10.2011. It is stated by the petitioner that notwithstanding the communications sent by the petitioner indicating his illness, the petitioner was declared a deserter by the said order. Further the disciplinary proceedings which were initiated against the petitioner was conducted by the Enquiry Officer ex-parte and the explanations forwarded by the petitioner through his communications were not taken note of that the petitioner was suffering from illness and was undergoing treatment. The entire enquiry was conducted ex-parte and no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to examine, cross-examine the witnesses. The enquiry report was duly submitted before the Commandant, 36 Battalion, CRPF, Khonsain the district of Tirap, Arunachal Pradesh. Thereafter, by order dated 16.04.2011 vide Office Order No. P-8-1/2012-36-Estt-2, the Disciplinary Authority namely the Commandant, 36 Battalion, CRPF, Khonsa in the district of Tirap, Arunachal Pradesh imposed the punishment of removal from service to the petitioner on the basis of the ex-parte findings in the enquiry report.
3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of removal dated 16.04.2012 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Khatkhatti. The said appeal, however, came to be dismissed vide order No. R-XIII.7/2012-DA-2 dated 12.12.2012 upholding the enquiry report as well as the order of dismissal passed by the Commandant, 36 Battalion, CRPF, Khonsa in the district of Tirap, Arunachal Pradesh.
4. The petitioner also preferred a revision petition on 04.01.2013 against the appellate order dated 12.12.2012 before the Inspector General of Police, N.E. Sector, CRPF under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules. The said
Harihar Banerji and Others Vs Ramsashi Roy and Others reported in AIR 1918 PC 102
Krushnakant B.Parmar Vs. Union of India & Anr.
State of Uttaranchal & Ors Vs. Kharak Singh
State of Karnataka and Anr. Vs Umesh reported in (2022) 6 SCC 563
State of Karnataka and another Vs Umesh reported in (2022) 6 SCC 563
Union of India and Ors. Vs. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat reported in (2005) 13 SCC 228
The main legal point established is that absence from duty cannot be deemed wilful if due to compelling circumstances, and disciplinary proceedings must be based on cogent material.
The court's decision highlighted the discretionary nature of issuing a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and emphasized the limited scope for interference in disciplinary matters, u....
Proportionality of punishment and adherence to prescribed procedures in disciplinary proceedings.
The punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the offence of unauthorized absence from duty.
The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed disciplinary procedures and upheld the principle of proportionality in imposing penalties for misconduct.
The court emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline in an armed force and upheld the disciplinary authority's decision based on the evidence presented during the proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.