Back
2020 Supreme(J&K) 257
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Rajesh Bindal, J.
Ram Paul
Versus
Union of India and Ors.
WP(C) No.1549/2020 (O&M)
(Through Video Conferencing)
Decided on 18-11-2020
Subject
Employment Law - Compulsory Retirement
Act Referred
SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL RULES : R.26, R.27
Headnote
SSB Act - Section 21 - Rule 26Sashastra Seema Bal Rules 2009 – Punishment - Service Of Sashastra Seema Bal - Petitioner submitted that petitioner joined service of Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) as a Barber- He had been performing his duties diligently- Though he was hale and hearty however all of a sudden he suffered psychiatric problem- Despite this he had been discharging his duties while on medicine- Whenever he applied for leave after availing same he joined his duty back- In case petitioner had not been able to attend his duties on time on account of his medical problem he was punished from time to time which included both physical and financial punishments- Punishments also included tough duties imprisonment and reduction in salary/pay- It is also stated that petitioner recently suffered acute cervical - Challenge to impugned order has been made on ground that petitioner has been compulsorily retired while referring to various or punishments imposed on him during his service career for which he had already been punished- Hence he has been punished twice for same charge –Held petitioner to notice was also considered and found to be without any merit- same has been placed on record by him- A perusal shows that petitioner does not deny factum of earlier misconduct and punishments imposed on him- He is only raising an issue regarding his ill health which action has been taken against petitioner provides that on being satisfied that an enrolled person is unsuitable to be retained in force Commanding Officer can take action- However person concerned is required to be informed- Entire adverse material against him has to be furnished to him with opportunity to respond case in hand proper procedure has been followed- In fact petitioner does not deny that his service record has more punishments than credits on account of his misconduct- It is admitted case of petitioner himself that on number of occasions he was imposed financial punishment besides imprisonment also but still he did not improve his conduct- Such an official is certainly not suitable in a disciplined force hence re is no error in opinion formed by authorities concerned that petitioner is not suitable to remain in service - Petition dismissed
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Sachin Dogra, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): None
Judgment
Rajesh Bindal, J.—The present petition has been filed impugning the order dated 02.07.2020, vide which, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired. Challenge has also been made to the order dated 07.08.2020, vide which, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner joined the service of Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) on 25.03.1997 as a Barber. He had been performing his duties diligently. Though he was hale and hearty, however, all of a sudden he suffered psychiatric problem. Despite this, he had been discharging his duties, while on medicine. Whenever he applied for leave, after availing the same, he joined his duty back. In case the petitioner had not been able to attend his duties on time on account of his medical problem, he was punished from time to time, which included both physical and financial punishments. Punishments also included tough duties, imprisonment and reduction in salary/pay. It is also stated that the petitioner recently suffered acute cervical spondylosis.
3. Challenge to the impugned order has been made on the ground that the petitioner has been compulsorily retired while referring to the various other punishments imposed on him during his service career for which he had already been punished. Hence, he has been punished twice for the same charge.
4. The learned counsel further submitted that in case the petitioner was not fit to remain in service on account of his medical problem, action was required to be taken under Rule 27 of the SSB Rules, 2009 and not Rule 26 thereof, under which he has been compulsorily retired. He has a family to maintain. Hence, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere in the present petition.
6. It is the admitted case of the petitioner himself that ever since he joined way back in the year 1997, he had not been keeping good health. As a result of which, he had been intermittently absenting from duty without authorization. The details when the petitioner overstayed from sanction leave and the period thereof has been detailed out in the order dated 02.07.2020. The same reads as under:
1. 17.05.2000 to 18.05.2000 - 02 days
2. 15.08.2001 to 24.08.2001 - 10 days
3. 18.07.2002 to 30.08.2002 - 44 days
4. 24.11.2002 to 06.12.2002 -13 days
5. 08.05.2003 to 28.05.2003 - 21 days
6. 04.09.2003 - 01 day
7. 22.06.2004 to 07.07.2004 - 16 days
8. 10.08.2005 to 20.08.2005 -11 days
9. 24.09.2009 to 08.10.2008 -15 days
10. 13.03.2009 to 15.03.2009 - 03 days
11. 29.03.2012 to 31.03.2012 - 03 days
12. 01.04.202 - 01 day
13. 29.05.2012 to 06.06.2012 - 09 days
14. 12.05.2013 to 19.05.2013 - 08 days
15. 16.05.2014 to 31.05.2014 - 16 days
16. 28.12.2014 to 01.01.2015 - 05 days
17. 25.02.2015 to 01.03.2015 - 05 days
18. 03.03.2015 to 17.03.2015 - 15 days
19. 31.03.2015 to 09.04.2015 - 10 days
20. 10.04.2015 - 01 day
21. 08.09.2015 to 23.10.2015 - 46 days
22. 08.12.2015 to 15.12.2015 - 08 days
23. 07.03.2016 to 06.04.2016 - 31 days
24. 02.04.2018 to 22.04.2018 - 21 days
25. 26.04.2018 to 09.05.2018 - 14 days
26. 10.05.2018 to 19.05.2018 - 10 days
27. 09.08.2018 to 10.08.2018 - 02 days
28. 11.08.2018 to 13.08.2018 - 03 days
29. 19.08.2018 to 29.08.2018 - 11 days
30. 02.11.2018 to 08.11.2018 - 07 days
31. 27.03.2019 to 10.04.2019 - 15 days
32. 29.05.2019 to 30.06.2019 - 33 days
33. 24.10.2019 - 01day
34. 31.01.2020 to 05.02.2020 - 06 days
35. 06.02.2020 to 08.03.2020 - 32 days
Total OSL- 449 days
7. The aforesaid table shows that on 35 occasions the petitioner had overstayed his sanctioned leave during his service career of about 23 years. The order dated 02.07.2020 retiring the petitioner compulsorily also records that in the case in hand he had proceeded on casual leave for 03 days on March 20, 2020 but resume his duties only on 11.05.2020 after absenting for 51 days. He had violated the standing instructi
