IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the removal of a constable for repeated indiscipline, affirming the adherence to procedural safeguards in disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. U. K. Goswami, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 31.07.2017, by means of which, he was removed from service as well as the subsequent order dated 25.03.2019 rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner, primarily on the ground that the impugned orders have been passed without following the due procedure laid down by law. The facts and circumstances of the case, briefly stated, are as follows.

3. The writ petitioner herein was recruited as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in the year 2009. While serving in the CISF Unit, BHEL, Haridwar at Barrier No.7 the writ petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from duty during the period from 05.07.2016 to 23.11.2016 i.e. for a period of 4 months 19 days. As many as three call letters sent to his permanent address instructing the petitioner to report back to duty went unanswered. As such, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 by serving a charge sheet dated 01.11.2016 containing the following charges :-

“Article of Charge – 01

On 05/07/2016 Force No.097353522 Ct/GD Kumar Chetri, CISF Unit BHEL Haridwar was deputed at Barrier No.7 for discharging service in 2nd Shift from 1300 hrs to 2100 hrs. That day the official remained absent from 2nd Shift without any information to or permission from competent officer and the matter of his absence was entered in the Daily Register. Search for the official was made in Unit Line Campus, Shivalik Nagar Market, Bus and Auto Stand and BHEL Hospital but he could not be traced out. The official was also absent from the counting parade. Thereafter five call- letters directing the official to immediately appear in the Unit to discharge his duties were sent to the permanent address of the official by registered post with A/D but the official has neither replied to the call letters nor has appeared in the Unit. The official has been a deserter since 05/07/2016 till date without any leave being granted to him. This act on the part of the official in the capacity of a member of a disciplined Force shows his negligence towards duties, gross indiscipline and defiance to orders duly passed by competent officer.

“Article of Charge – 02

In his short duration of service dill date, Force No.097353522 Ct/GD Kumar Chetri, CISF Unit BHEL Haridwar, has already been awarded 06 minor punishments under Rule 37 of CISF Rules and 02 major punishments under Rule 36 of CISF Rules, for his various negligence, indiscipline and misconducts.

Despite that he has not brought any reformation to his negligence in discharging duties and misconduct. This kind of act on the part of a member of a disciplined Force shows his negligence towards duties and indiscipline.”

4. The petitioner was granted opportunity to submit his written statement and accordingly, he had also submitted his written statement on 03.12.2016. In his reply, the petitioner has stated that due to some family problem he had to remain absent from duty during the period from 05.07.2016 to 23.11.2016. Although the petitioner had admitted that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty, yet, the authorities had decided to conduct an enquiry into the charges brought against him. Accordingly, Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer were appointed for the purpose of the enquiry. It appears that during the preliminary hearing, the charged official i.e. the writ petitioner had admitted that he had received the memorandum of charge and had understood the same but he denied the charges brought against him.

5. During the enquiry proceeding the department had examined a number of witnesses so as to prove the charges brought against the petitioner. However, the writ petitioner did not adduce any evidence in his defence. After conclusion of the enquiry