For members of a disciplined armed force like the CRPF, unauthorized absence constitutes gross misconduct; under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, the disciplinary authority may impose the penalty of removal from service for such misconduct, which will not be classified as disproportionate in the absence of valid justification.

WRIT APPEAL No.925 of 2013

JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma)

Introductory:

1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the orders dated 28.12.2012 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.20449 of 2002.

2. The appellant is the writ petitioner. The Writ Petition was filed invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to declare the action of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in imposing punishment of removal of the petitioner from service as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as constable with all consequential benefits. The Writ Petition was dismissed under the impugned orders by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as the petitioner and the respondents as and how they are arrayed in the writ petition.

4. The Petitioner was working as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) at Warangal. A disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him on a charge of desertion, that the writ petitioner while functioning as CT (GD) in D/113 Bn CRPF during the period from 15.07.1995, committed an act of misconduct and disobedience of orders, in his capacity as a member of the Force, under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, and that he deserted from the unit lines, Bheemaram, Warangal on 09.11.1998 without permission of competent authority and did not report for duty even after repeated directions which is pre-judicial to good orders and discipline of the armed Force. The punishment of removal from service is imposed.

Case of the writ petitioner:

5(i). The writ petitioner was recruited as O.R. (Constable) in C.R.P.F in the year 1994. He was selected in Kurnool as Constable and sent back to C.R.P.F, Hyderabad, where he stayed till June, 1995. Later, he was sent to 113 Bn, Triupra, where he served for 2 1/2 years. Then he was sent to 113 Bn, Warangal. He suffered ill health at Warangal. He was on medical rest for 15 days w.e.f. 05.11.1998 to 19.11.1998. He has undergone operation for Sinusitis. After the operation, once again he was advised rest for 15 days. Hence, he applied for leave to move to his native place. Though he sought permission, there was no response from respondent No.3. However, he has rushed to native place from where he sent a telegram that he will be able to join / report duty on 22.11.1998. But he did not recover fully and was unable to report. Meanwhile, he submitted representation for prosecuting studies for B.Com degree at Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati and requested leave for five years and to have lien on the job without salary. He left the headquarters on 09.11.1998 a warning / recall letter was issued dated 24.11.1998. He could not report as directed for the reason of ill health.

(ii). The enquiry was ordered in a routine manner. The punishment awarded is very grave and disproportionate. The Offence falls under Section 10(m) of the C.R.P.F. Act, 1949, which is described as a less heinous offence. Hence, the punishment imposed is excessive.

Case of the respondents:

6(i). The departmental enquiry was ordered for the charge referred to above and a charge sheet was sent to the writ petitioner at his home address, which was received by him on 10.05.1999, but he did not submit any reply. An enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down on the subject, providing sufficient opportunity to the writ petitioner to defend.

(ii). The writ petitioner has submitted medical documents for his absence and same were not found genuine by the enquiry officer, hence, the charge was found proved. The writ petitioner was on medical rest w.e.f. 05.11.1998 to 19.11.1998. He was directed to avail medical rest at unit lines/M.I. room, but he left th