Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 41709
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE, J
Ashish Rajouria – Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India – Respondent
WP 5059/2011
Jai Prakash Mishra,R.B.Sharma,Rishikesh Bohare,A.K,
Disciplinary authorities must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring fair hearings and proportionate penalties in accordance with the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949.
Headnote:(A) Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 - Sections 9, 10, 11, and 12 - Writ petition under Article 226 - Challenge to dismissal from service without proper inquiry and opportunity to be heard - The petitioner was removed from service for unauthorized absence without due process, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice. (Paras 1, 4, 7, 17, 24)
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - The authority must ensure that punishment is proportionate to the misconduct and follow due process, including providing an opportunity for the accused to present their case. (Paras 16, 19)
(C) Judicial Review - The court's role is limited to ensuring that the disciplinary authority has acted within its jurisdiction and has not imposed a punishment that shocks the conscience. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Cook in the CRPF, was dismissed after being absent for 219 days due to his wife's serious illness, without being given a chance to explain his absence. (Paras 3, 5, 15)
Findings of Court:
The dismissal was quashed due to lack of proper inquiry and failure to follow the prescribed procedures, with directions for a fresh hearing. (Paras 17, 25)
Issues: The main issues were whether the dismissal was justified given the circumstances of the petitioner's absence and whether proper procedures were followed in the disciplinary process. (Paras 10, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary authority failed to provide a fair hearing and imposed a disproportionate penalty, which was not permissible under the applicable rules. (Paras 16, 24)
Result: Petition allowed; dismissal quashed and remitted for fresh consideration.
ORDER
The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 23.05.2011 and January, 2010 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 22.10.2009 by which challenge was made to the order passed in appeal preferred by the petitioner in compliance to the order dated 12.08.2009 passed in W.P. No.3470/09 had been dismissed. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 04.06.2009 passed by respondent No.4/Commandant 75th Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force whereby without issuing any show cause notice and without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing and without assigning any reasons under which circumstances, the petitioner could not join his duties had rejected the appeal. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2008 by which the petitioner was declared as “Bhagoda”. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 08.11.2019 passed by Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force whereby the revision preferred under Rule 29 of central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 has been dismissed and the order dated 19.10.2020 whereby the Revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by Special Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, Kolkatta.
2. In brief the facts of the case are that, the petitioner was initially appointed in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on the post of Cook bearing No.050750171 at 75th Battalion Srinagar (Jammu & Kashmir).
3. In the month of July 2008, the petitioner was posted as a Cook in 75th Battalion of CRPF at TRC, Srinagar District Srinagar. During that period, the wife of petitioner Smt. Anjana suffered from abdomen and Gynic problem and her health condition became serious, therefore, the petitioner applied for leave for giving better treatment to his wife and the competent/commanding authority granted 10 days' leave to the petitioner. After his leave was sanctioned, the petitioner went to his home and started giving treatment to his wife but the health of the petitioner's wife could not be recovered in a short period of 10 days and after the completion of the period of 10 days, the petitioner had to join his duties leaving his wife in the sick condition.
4. The health of the petitioner's wife again become serious in the month of October, 2008 as informed by the petitioner's family members therefore, immediately the petitioner applied for the leave to his Commanding/Higher authority but the Commanding/High authority of the petitioner refused to sanction the leave to the petitioner and during this period the health of the petitioner's wife further deteriorated and in such circumstances the petitioner informing to his seniors/commanding authority went on leave on 28.10.2008 and after reaching home the petitioner took her for treatment under the prescription of Gynic Specialist and her treatment continued upto the month of April 2009 and during this period, the health of his wife improved and thereafter the petitioner returned to his duty.
5. Meanwhile in the month of April 2009, this fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the respondents-authorities behind the back of the petitioner and without issuing any show cause notice and without giving opportunity of hearing for explaining his absence from the duty had removed him from the services.
6. The petitioner approached his higher/commanding authorities in the month of July, 2009 and then this fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner that the respondent no.4 Commanding 75th Battalion. on the basis of ex-parte inquiry report as conducted by Assistant Commandant of 75th Bn of Central Reserve Police Force without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner vide order dated 4.6.2009 (Annexure P/4) had removed the petitioner from his services but the petitioner was never communicated about his removal from the services nor the order of removal was sent to him.
7. The respondents-authorities without foll
