Regularization of unauthorized absence as Extraordinary Leave without salary precludes the continuation of disciplinary proceedings and consideration of the petitioner's long and clean service record in determining the proportionality of the punishment.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his Order No.R.XIII-60/2016-Adm-7, dated 10.08.2016, confirming the order of the 4th respondent dated 16.01.2016 in his Office Order No.R.XIII-08/2015-EC-3, confirming the order of the 5th respondent in his Office Order No.P.VIII-5/2015-42-ECII(KRC) dated 17.08.2015 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to take the petitioner as Constable in the strength of Central Reserve Police Force.)

1. The punishment of removal from service issued by the Disciplinary Authority, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that he joined as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (in short 'CRPF') on 15.04.1991 and had served all over India, more specifically at Ludhiana, Pattankot, Srinagar, Baramulla (Assam). When the petitioner was working at Jammu & Kashmir Area, he was transferred to GC/Avadi, Chennai. The petitioner states that he suffered Psychological and Neuro problems, for which, he had taken treatment at the Government General Hospital, Chennai. He was treated for Psychological problem of diagnosed as Anxiety OCD Disorder (obsessive – compulsive – Disorder) and was undergoing treatment from March 2004 onwards. He was issued with the provisional Fitness Certificate on 10.01.2005, stating that he had been attending to “Physhiatric out patient treatment” at Mental Health Centre – Chennai-10 regularly and declared provisionally fit and rejoined duty. After his full-improvement, he was issued with the full fitness certificate. The petitioner produced the fitness certificate before the GC/CRPF/Avadi, Chennai on 02.11.2007. The petitioner was about to get the posting orders for discharging his duties and he was informed by his colleagues that he had been transferred to 42-Battalion vide office order dated 15.09.2009. The petitioner filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.20612 of 2009 before the High Court and this Court referred the matter to CRPF, Avadi, Chennai – 65. He was advised to get a behaviour Report from CRPF, Avadi, Chennai. The respondents had advised the petitioner to come back to CRPF in February 2011 and then only, they will issue the “Final Fitness” Certificate to him. The behaviour report was given by the CRPF, Avadi on 24.09.2010 and thereafter, the provisional fitness certificate was issued on 20.11.2010 by the Senior Surgeon and Director of Mental Health Certificate is also granted after the “Behaviour Report” in February 2011. He was issued with the transfer order dated 05.01.2011 and he filed writ petition in W.P.No.7201 of 2011. The said writ petition was pending for about 1 year and 11 months and on 17.12.2012, this Court passed an order and the petitioner rejoined duty at 42nd Battalion. However, the petitioner had not joined immediately on the ground that the final fitness certificate was not issued to him and overstayed for about 720 days.

3. A charge memorandum was issued, framing two Articles of Charges. The first charge is that the petitioner was relieved on transfer from GC, CRPF, Avadi on 10.01.2011 (AN) and reported at his own on 31.12.2012 (FN) after 720 days without any permission from the competent authority. The second charge is the consequential one. The petitioner defended his case by submitting his explanations. The petitioner mainly contended that he was under Medical treatment and further, not issued with the full fitness certificate. On account of the said reasons, the petitioner was not in a position to join duty immediately and the overstay was not wilful and due to certain genuine circumstances. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an enquiry officer, who in turn, conducted an enquiry by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner availed off the opport