Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, and penalties require clear justification; absence without leave does not equate to desertion without intent to abandon service.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing order dated 27.07.2002 whereby penalty of removal from service has been imposed upon him. That apart, the petitioner has also challenged appellate, revisional and subsequent rejection orders dated 08.11.2002, 01.01.2003, 21.03.2003 and 24.07.2003 respectively and sought for a direction to reinstate him back in service along with all consequential benefits.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable (GD) through direct recruitment in the year 1995 and joined his duties at Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF Group Centre), Ajmer. Thereafter, the petitioner also served with B/100 Battalion, Rapid Action Force, CRPF, Ahmedabad. In order to show his commendable performance, the petitioner has placed before this Court certificates revealing that he was repeatedly appreciated by superior officers and awarded cash rewards on as many as eight occasions. His performance during sensitive and arduous deployments, including post-riot duties in Gujarat following the Godhra incident and rescue and relief operations during the devastating Bhuj earthquake, was formally acknowledged through appreciation letters issued by senior officers, including the Inspector General of Police. He also secured ‘A’ grading in the Basic Ammunition Training Course.

3. However, one charge-sheet dated 11.02.2002 was served upon the petitioner, whereby four charges were levelled against the petitioner, broadly alleging desertion from force during training, residing outside the camp without permission, misconduct during training and being a habitual indisciplined employee. Charge No. 1 levels the allegations that while functioning as Constable/GD, he committed misconduct inasmuch as he was deputed to undergo D & M Course, but he deserted from the camp on his own volition w.e.f. 0600 hours on 17.11.2001, without obtaining permission or sanction from any competent authority, and reported back only on 05.12.2001. Charge No. 2 was in relation to the allegation that while undergoing training at Central Training College, he resided with his family in a rented accommodation outside the camp, without obtaining permission or approval from any competent authority, which is in violation of Force rules and training regulations. Charge No. 3 reflects that while undergoing D & M Course, Central Training College, the petitioner showed lack of interest in the course, displayed bad character, disobeyed orders, behaved improperly, indulged in lying and quarrelling, etc. Owing to these habits and conduct, he was expelled from the course and was directed to report to his unit on 06.12.2001. However, he failed to report within the stipulated time and instead reported on his own volition on 27.12.2001 and during this entire period of absence, no intimation was given to his office. Charge No. 4 contains allegation that on examination of petitioner's service record during his tenure in the CRPF, it was found that he has been punished on two occasions earlier for acts of indiscipline. This clearly indicates that he was not a disciplined member of the Force and is habitual of acts of indiscipline and misconduct and that such conduct is against the discipline of the Force.

4. The petitioner filed reply to the charge sheet denying the charges and it was stated by him in relation to Charge No. 1 that he never deserted from the force and since he suffered from acute renal pain due to suspected stone from 28.10.2001 and was referred from the CRPF Hospital to Civil Hospital, where he remained admitted till 09.11.2001 and even s