The court upheld the removal from service of a constable for wilful absence from duty over a prolonged period, considering the repeated notices and opportunities given to the petitioner to participate in the departmental inquiry proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.

1. Matter has been taken up through Video Conferencing via Webex facility in the light of the Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per instructions.

2. Challenge in the instant petition is to the order dated 28.03.2019 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Commandant 96 Bn. CRPF and whereby a major punishment of removal from service was imposed upon the petitioner who was serving as a Constable/General Duty.

3. Further challenge is to the orders appended and placed on record at Annexure P-4, P-6, P-8 and P-10, whereby the appellate and revisional authorities have affirmed the action of removal from service and even two mercy petitions preferred by the petitioner stand declined.

4. Briefly, it may be taken note that departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide Memo dated 17.10.2018 on the following charge:

“That CT/GD, Manoj Kumar, 96 Bn. CRPF No. 05580262 while working on the post of Constable/General Duty and in capacity of being a member of the force has done the misconduct under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 for disobedience of orders/neglect of his duty/laxity in discharge of his duty/other misconduct under which the personnel is absent from his duty from 08.06.2018 (F.N.) till now on his own and without permission of any competent officer, which is against the good conduct/behaviour of a member of a disciplined force.”

5. It is such article of charge that stands duly proved and upon culmination of departmental proceedings, the impugned order of removal from service has been passed.

6. Counsel would argue that the petitioner had joined service in the year 2005 and as such, was having 14 years of service to his credit and for which due weightage has not been given while taking a decision to remove him from service. Further submitted that the impugned orders cannot sustain as they suffer from a non-application of mind as the health ailment that the petitioner was suffering from was also not kept in mind. Action is stated to be arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is urged that due opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner and an ex-parte inquiry has been held. Yet another submission raised is that the major penalty of removal from service is not commensurate to the charge of being absent from duty and as such a lesser punishment ought to have been imposed. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed upon judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Giri Raj Sharma, AIR 1994 SC 215.

7. Counsel has been heard at length and pleadings on record have been perused.

8. In the facts of the present case, petitioner while serving on the post of Constable remained continuously absent from duty since 08.06.2018. Perusal of the impugned order dated 28.03.2019 (Annexure P-2) would reflect that repeated notices and opportunities were granted to the petitioner. In the first instance, the petitioner having been transferred from Pinjore to Jammu in May, 2018 and having availed 10 days joining time and yet having not reported at the place of posting was issued letter dated 28.07.2018 through a registered post at his home address to report for duty immediately. Petitioner did not join his duty and rather continued being absent. On 17.11.2018, another communication was sent through registered post at his home address giving 15 days time to report back as also informing him about the proposed inquiry to be initiated against him for absence from duty. No response was forthcoming. Vide order dated 18.12.2018, initiation of departmental proceedings took place as per articles of charge reproduced herein above. Presenting Officer was appointed vide office order dated 14.01.2019 and a copy of which was also sent to the home address of the petitioner through registered post. The Inquiry Officer while initiating proceedings issued letter dated 22.12.2018 calling upon the petitioner to submit objections, if any, as regards his appointment as also to furnish a