Disciplinary dismissal for serious unauthorized absence upheld as proper under CRPF Act, affirming authority in service conduct over mere appeal of punishment severity.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 08.06.2015, passed by the sixth respondent and the consequential impugned order dated 28.05.2021, passed by the fourth respondent, dismissing the petitioner from service.

2. The petitioner was working with the Central Reserve Police Force as a Police Constable. On account of his unauthorized absence for a period of 270 days, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. An Enquiry Officer was appointed in the disciplinary proceedings. In the enquiry proceedings, despite receipt of notice, the petitioner chose not to attend the enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report and in the enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer has held that the petitioner is guilty of the charges framed against him, namely, unauthorized absence for a period of 270 days. Based on the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority, namely, sixth respondent passed the impugned order dated 08.06.2015 imposing the punishment of dismissing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the fifth respondent and the same was also rejected by the fifth respondent through proceedings dated 26.12.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner once again preferred an appeal before the fourth respondent and the same was also rejected through the impugned order dated 28.05.2021. Challenging the impugned orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. The petitioner claims that he has rendered 24 years of impeccable service. According to him, on account of some compelling situation, he was unable to report for duty. The petitioner pleads in this writ petition that having rendered 24 years of service, the punishment imposed on him is harsh and it will have to be reduced to one of compulsory retirement to enable him to get the benefits for his long length of service. The petitioner claims that his absence from duty is neither willful nor wanton, but only due to the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition. The petitioner also pleads that all the enquiry notices, enquiry report and the impugned dismissal order were all in the language of Hindi and since he cannot read and write Hindi, he did not know the contents of the same and was unable to take further steps in the disciplinary proceedings to defend his case.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the contentions of the petitioner. The sum and substance of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents before this Court are as follows:

(a) The petitioner is a habitual offender, and in the past as well, without obtaining leave from the respondents, he had absented himself from duty unauthorizedly.

(b) The petitioner was declared as a deserter, after initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against him, which resulted in the petitioner being dismissed from service.

(c) The petitioner received all the notices from the respondents in the disciplinary proceedings, but, has chosen not to enter appearance in the enquiry proceedings.

(d) Only based on the evidence available on record and only due to the fact that in the past as well the petitioner has been a habitual offender by unauthorizedly absenting himself from duty and the respondent – Organisation being a Disciplined Force, the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authorities have dismissed the petitioner from service.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that insofar as the unauthorized absence of the petitioner from duty is concerned, the responden