Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. SRIMATHY, J.
G. Vetrivel - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India, New Delhi & Others - Respondent
W.P.(MD). No. 6110 of 2016
Decided On : 02-06-2022
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Central Industrial Security Force - CISF Acts and Rules - [Article 226] - [Central Industrial Security Force] - [CISF Acts and Rules] - The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondents to conduct de-novo enquiry, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector Executive in the Central Industrial Security Force, was imposed with the punishment of 'Removal from service with immediate effect' after being absent for more than 200 days. The petitioner contended that he was not granted sufficient opportunity to substantiate his case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not granted sufficient opportunity in the domestic enquiry, especially when there was contemplation to impose a major punishment. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondents to conduct de-novo enquiry, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's absence from service, the adequacy of opportunity granted in the domestic enquiry, and the competence of the Enquiry Officer appointed by the 5th respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: Sufficient and effective opportunity should be granted to the delinquent in the domestic enquiry, especially when there is contemplation to impose a major punishment. The respondents are duty bound to give sufficient opportunity to the petitioner in order to establish his case.
Final Decision: The impugned orders passed by the 3rd and 4th respondents are set aside. The respondents are directed to conduct de-novo enquiry, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his Order No.V-11014/APS/APL-13/GV/LC/2015-11665, dated 30.12.2015, and confirming the order passed by the 4th respondent in his Final Order No.V-15014/CISF/APSZ/Maj-01/CNI/GV/2014-4024, dated 24.06.2014 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to take the petitioner into the strength of Sub-Inspector Executive in the Central Industrial Security Force with all monetary benefits.)
1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned orders, dated 30.12.2015 and 24.06.2014 passed by the 3rd and 4th respondents respectively and direct the respondents to take the petitioner into the strength of Sub-Inspector Executive in the Central Industrial Security Force with all monetary benefits.
2. The brief facts of the writ petition are as follows:
The petitioner has joined duty as Constable in the year 2003 and had served all over India up to the year 2008. Thereafter, he was selected and posted as Sub Inspector, through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination held in the year 2008 and appointment order was issued on 21.01.2008. While the petitioner was serving under the 7th respondent, he was granted four days earned leave from 16.11.2013 to 19.11.2013. After availing the leave, the petitioner sent an E-mail on 19.11.2013 seeking extension of fifteen days leave from 20.11.2013. But the 7th respondent by letter, dated 25.11.2013 had informed and directed the petitioner to report for duty, failing which, disciplinary action will be initiated. Again on 02.12.2013, the petitioner has sent another E-mail to permit the petitioner to report for duty on 05.12.2013. Thereafter, again on 03.12.2013, the petitioner has sent an E-mail with the request to extend the leave till 19.12.2013, on health ground. The 7th respondent again issued a call up notice on 06.12.2013, directing the petitioner to report for duty immediately. On 16.12.2013, the petitioner has sent an Email with request to extend the leave on the ground that he was suffering from Jaundice and was taking treatment. Again the 7th respondent sent a call letter on 16.12.2013, 19.12.2013 and 21.12.2013 with a direction to the petitioner to report for duty. On 02.01.2014, the petitioner has submitted his reply.
3. The respondents have issued Articles of Charges alleging that the petitioner was granted 11 days earned leave from 26.09.2013 to 07.10.2013. After completion of sanctioned leave, he was supposed to join for duty on 07.10.2013. But he failed to do so and overstayed on 07.10.2013 for one day unauthorizedly without any intimation/valid permission from the competent authority. The second charge dated 10.10.2013, is that the petitioner was directed to submit explanation on the misleading facts that his father was ill and another memo, dated 10.10.2013 and seeking explanation for his one day overstayed of leave with direction to submit a reply by 15.10.2013. But the petitioner failed to reply and according to the respondents, the act of the petitioner tantamount to disobedience, indiscipline, negligence and dereliction of duty. Hence the present charges.
4. The petitioner contended that he has submitted his detailed explanation on 20.01.2014. But without considering the same and without any authority the 5th respondent has appointed Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry upon the charges framed against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has conducted exparte enquiry and based on the exparte enquiry report, punishment of 'Removal from service with immediate effect' was awarded upon the petitioner by the fourth respondent. Against which, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the third respondent. The third respondent by his order, dated 30.12.2015, rejecting the appeal, has confirmed the order of punishment
Sufficient and effective opportunity should be granted to the delinquent in the domestic enquiry, especially when there is contemplation to impose a major punishment.
Termination upheld as lawful due to prolonged unauthorized absence and failure to substantiate claims of illness, despite claims of procedural violations.
Unauthorised absence is an act of indiscipline and may lead to disciplinary action, including dismissal from service.
The court upheld the disciplinary action based on the established facts and circumstances, emphasizing the importance of considering the intention behind the employee's actions in disciplinary procee....
The Court upheld the penalty of removal from service based on the petitioner's admission of charges, failure to submit written explanations, and the consideration of the petitioner's previous conduct....
The limited scope of interference to a punishment imposed pursuant to a departmental enquiry, barring a few exceptions, and the principle that re-appreciation of evidences is not permissible.
Disciplinary penalties must be proportionate to the misconduct, considering the individual's service history and circumstances surrounding the case.
Limited scope of interference in departmental enquiries unless there is perversity writ large on the face of the proceedings or gross violation of principles of natural justice.
The court emphasized that a medical condition does not excuse an employee's failure to follow leave rules and report to the authorities, and that repeated misconduct can warrant severe punishment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
