Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
B.Venkanna - Appellant
Versus
The Commandant 217 and others - Respondents
W.P.No. 19316 of 2018
Decided on : 25-11-2022
Unauthorized Absence - Service Matter - CRPF Act-1949 Section-11(1), CRPF Rules-1955 Rule-27 - The court discussed the absence covered by medical reasons, the right to receive a copy of the enquiry officer’s report, and the doctrine of proportionality. The court opined that the punishment imposed should meet the standards of fairness and be in strict compliance with principles of natural justice. The impugned orders were set aside, and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was removed from service due to unauthorized absence. The petitioner claimed medical reasons and lack of evidence for the absence. The respondents argued that the absence was unauthorized and willful.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's absence was not decided on merits due to the petitioner's non-participation in the enquiry. The denial of the right to receive a copy of the enquiry officer’s report was a breach of principles of natural justice.
Issues: The main issue was whether the absence was willful or due to compelling circumstances, and whether the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
Ratio Decidendi: The court opined that the absence cannot be held willful if it is due to compelling circumstances. The denial of the right to receive a copy of the enquiry officer’s report is a breach of principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were set aside, and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.
ORDER :
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking relief as follows:
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
a) The petitioner was appointed in CRPF on 04.12.2005 and on transfer from 74 Bn, CRPF, the petitioner was posted to 217 Bn, CRPF w.e.f 02.09.2012.
b) The petitioner was absent from his duties from 10.06.2013 without any information to the 1st respondent. After framing charges and conducting of ex-parte enquiry the petitioner was removed from service by order dated 29.10.2014. Against the said orders, the petitioner filed Appeal to 2nd respondent on 05.01.2015, the appeal was rejected on 25.05.2015. Again on 29.06.2015, the petitioner filed revision petition to 3rd respondent which was also rejected by orders dated 06.03.2016.
c) In the appeal and revision petition which was submitted by the petitioner to the 2nd and 3rd respondents, informing that the petitioner was unwell and requested for extension of leave. As there was no CRPF Hospital in Warangal District, the petitioner was admitted in MGM Government Hospital for treatment.
d) The petitioner sent leave applications through fax and registered posts to 1st respondent requesting for extension of his leave, as the petitioner was met with an accident and undergoing treatment. In addition to these reasons, the petitioner’s parents were also expired. After acknowledging all these medical certificates and leave applications the leave cannot be treated as unauthorized absence.
e) The Supreme Court of India has held that the absence covered by medical reasons cannot be said as unauthorized absence and set aside the major punishment. There is no evidence discussed by the respondents to arrive at a conclusion that the absence is unauthorized and willful. Therefore, on the ground of lack of evidence, the punishment is liable to be set aside and reinstate the petitioner into service, the writ petition is filed.
4. The case of the respondents, in brief, is as follows:
a) The petitioner was appointed in CRPF on 04.12.2005 and on transfer from 74 Bn, CRPF, the petitioner was posted to 217 Bn, CRPF w.e.f 02.09.2012, and the petitioner while posted in C/217Bn CRPF was sanctioned 19 days earned leave w.e.f 22.05.2013 to 09.06.2013 as requested. But the petitioner failed to report back to duty after the said leave and remained absent from duty unauthorizedly.
b) The petitioner had submitted an application to the respondent No.1 for extension of leave from 10.06.2013 to 09.07.2013 as the petitioner is undergoing treatment at M.G.M.Hospital, Warangal. But the petitioner request had not been considered by respondent No.1 as the petitioner failed to submit any medical documents in support of his leave extension request. The petitioner was informed to report back for his duty immediately along with all medical documents related to his treatment, accordingly, O.C. C/217 Bn CRPF vide letter No.L.II-2/2013-C/217, dated 27.06.2013 and 06.07.2013 were issued to the petitioner to report for his duty.
c) The petitioner instead of reporting for duty, again he submitted an application through Fax, dated 09.07.2013 requesting extension of his leave without providing any medical documents in support of his application. The same is not considered by Commandant 217 Bn, CRPF. d) In view of above, a complaint was lo
The right to receive the enquiry report and a second show-cause notice is a fundamental aspect of the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, and failure to provide these rights in....
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
