The court emphasized the importance of disciplinary procedure and upheld the dismissal based on the petitioner's conduct and lack of evidence supporting his medical condition.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner seeks quashing of order No. D.II-1/89-33-EC-II dated nil August, 1991, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

2. Briefly stating the material facts are as under:

3. Petitioner was appointed as a Constable in CRPF and was serving in 33 Bn. During the course of his employment, he developed some disc problem and was referred to Group Centre-I, CRPF Ajmer Hospital, for treatment on 20.12.1988 by the Unit Medical Officer. After the checkup in Group Centre-I, he had underwent treatment from 04.01.1989 to 04.02.1989 and, thereafter, was advised for seven days home rest by the Medical Officer of Group Centre-I, CRPF Ajmer with permission to avail home rest w.e.f. 05.02.1989 to 11.02.1989. The petitioner then returned home to avail the prescribed rest.

4. The ailment, which the petitioner was suffering from persisted and he remained under treatment of various doctors while he was on home rest. Petitioner informed the respondents of his persisting ailment and sought extension of leave vide various letters, and postal receipts of the letters/communications sent to respondents are enclosed by him along with the medical certificates.

5. During the period while the petitioner was under treatment, the respondents held an ex parte enquiry against him and on the basis of said ex parte enquiry, dismissed the petitioner from service vide order No. D.II-I/85-33-EC-II dated nil August, 1991. The petitioner submits that he has been declared medically fit to resume his duty and, as such, has assailed the order of dismissal by way of this petition.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have framed charges against him under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949, whereas, under Section 11 of the Act, only minor punishment can be imposed, and there cannot be removal from service under Section 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner do not fall under the ambit of Section 11 of the CRPF Act, therefore, the petitioner could not have been dismissed from service.

7. It is further urged that the order of dismissal is also liable to be quashed on the ground that the respondents have imposed punishment which falls under the category of major punishment, for which, the respondents have to conduct the proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, in which, the charge has to be framed and the delinquent has to be afforded an opportunity to reply to the charge sheet and thereafter, the statement of witnesses were to be recorded and a chance be given to cross-examine the same. It is submitted that the respondents have by-passed the entire procedure without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and, thus, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Further it is stated that the respondents have also not issued the show cause notice to the petitioner regarding the proposed punishment and also not afforded an opportunity to him to reply to the same, as such, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

8. The respondents in their objections have stated that the petitioner initially while serving in 33 Bn. CRPF was granted 60 days leave w.e.f. 28.03.1988 to 26.05.1988, but he failed to report on duty and absented himself without any proper permission from the competent authority. Thereafter, he reported after absenting for 93 days, which was regularized as leave without pay and a warning letter in this regard was also issued to him. On reporting back to duty, the petitioner reported sick and the medical officer referred him to Bone and Joint Hospital, Srinagar for treatment. The petitioner remained under treatment w.e.f. 30.08.1988 to 21.11.1988. His medical rest period was regularized into 60 days earned leave and on 22.11.1988, he was declared unfit for belt force duty by the Bone Specialist of Bone and Joint Hospital, Srinagar. On the basis of the findings of medical authority, he was referred to G