17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C)No.2212/2012
% Date of decision: 28th August, 2012
V VENUGOPAL RAO ..... Petitioner
Through : Dr. Vijendra Mahndiyan and
Ms. Pallavi Awasthi, Advs.
versus
UOI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Prasouk Jain, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The petitioner assails the order dated 2 nd February, 2011 whereby the punishment of censure was imposed upon him after the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the Central Industrial Security Force. The petitioner also assails the order dated 6th June, 2011 whereby his appeal assailing the above order was rejected as well as the revisional order dated 22nd October, 2011 rejecting his revision.
2. The facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are in a narrow compass.
3. The petitioner was initially appointed in CISF as Constable on 22nd June, 1998. On 25th March, 2010, the petitioner was transferred from the CISF Unit in Tamil Nadu to the CISF Unit W.P.(C)No.2212/2012 Page 1 of 6 GBS, New Delhi. The CISF, APS Headquarters, New Delhi had issued a letter dated 3rd February, 2010 wherein the training calendar for the year 2010 had been specified which included the schedule for the various courses.
4. The petitioner's name was forwarded by the letter dated 13th April, 2010 as he fulfilled the eligibility criteria for undergoing the Quick Reaction Team (QRT) basic course scheduled to be held at the CISF, RTC, Munadali, Orissa. He underwent a pre-course of short duration at CISF, STC, Mahipal Pur, New Delhi for screening test and by the communication dated 20th April, 2010 was found suitable for undergoing QRT basic course.
5. It is undisputed that on 23rd April, 2010, the movement order of the CISF personnel including the petitioner for undergoing the second batch QRT course which was to be held from 26th April, 2010 to 29th May, 2010 at RTC Munadali, Orissa was issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had fallen sick on 23 rd April, 2010 and had reported to the doctor of the Emergency at the RML Hospital. It is the petitioner's contention that despite his being sick, he has still proceeded for the course as directed on 24th April, 2010 and reached Cuttack on 26th April, 2010. At this stage the petitioner's contention is that he had fallen sick and had W.P.(C)No.2212/2012 Page 2 of 6 got himself examined at the SCB Medical Hospital Cuttack. In this regard, an OPD slip as well as a report of the Department of Radio Diagnosis which is dated 1st May, 2010 has been placed on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before reporting to the private medical facility, the petitioner had reported to the CISF Dispensary at Cuttack. However, the same is not supported by any documentation placed on record and this slip has been disputed by the respondents.
6. The petitioner before us relies on a medical certificate dated 4th May, 2010 issued by the Medical Officer of the CISF Munadali. It is submitted that as per this certificate, he was advised two weeks home rest and also to avoid strenuous exercise like the QRT course. In view thereof the CISF Munadali, District Cuttack passed an order dated 5 th May, 2010 directing the petitioner to return to his parent unit on medical ground.
7. The respondents have taken a strong view of the petitioner's failure to inform the CISF authorities of his ill health before he proceeded to Munadali, Cuttack on 24 th April, 2010 as well as after his arrival in Delhi on 8th May, 2010. It is contended that by his action in proceeding for the QRT course, the petitioner has broken protocol consequently resulted in W.P.(C)No.2212/2012 Page 3 of 6 wasting Government resources. It is further submitted that the respondents maintained a list of reserved candidates who could have replaced the petitioner for undergoing the QRT course. In this background, pursuant to directions dated 10 th December, 2010 by the Head Quarters, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner under Rule 37 of the CISF Rules 2001 for conducting disciplinary proceedings in respect of his negligence and the charge memo dated 12th January, 2011 was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner's defence was found unsatisfactory by the disciplinary authority and finally by an order dated 2nd February, 2011, the penalty of censure was imposed upon the petitioner. As noted above, the petitioner's appeal was rejected by an order dated 6th June, 2011 and his revision by the order dated 22nd October, 2011.
8. The petitioner's challenge rests primarily on the factual assertion that he had gone to the CISF medical facilities which had referred him to the medical facilities.
9. We find that the charge against the petitioner is not that he visited the private medical facility but that he failed to inform the concerned authority of this sickness resulting in wastage of Government resources. The respondents have submitted that the negligence of the petitioner has also resulted in the wastage of a vacancy assigned to the unit. The W.P.(C)No.2212/2012 Page 4 of 6 respondents have also doubted the petitioner's sickness and have pointed out that despite obtaining medical certificates advising rest, the petitioner has regularly performed the duties other than undertaking the QRT basic course for which he had been detailed. It has been contended that the medical examination of the petitioner was conducted on 20 th July, 2010 by the Medical Officer at NHCC Saket, New Delhi when he was not found to be suffering from any kind of medical or physical problem and that the petitioner was completely fit.
10. It is contended that no medical record was produced even before the authority till the time the charge memo was issued by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner has also not placed any material before the authority or even before this court that he undertook any treatment pursuant to the advice of the doctors. In this background his claimed ailments have been doubted by the respondents as well. In the counter affidavit, a stand is taken that the plea of ailments was a camouflage to avoid undergoing the course on medical ground. In these circumstances, the vacancy allotted to the unit remained unutilized. The position is not disputed before us.
11. The petitioner was a serving officer and was well aware of the fitness requirements for undergoing the QRT course. In case the petitioner was sick he was duty bound to inform the W.P.(C)No.2212/2012 Page 5 of 6 respondents of his sickness which would have enabled them to detail a reserved personnel for undergoing the course.
12. The action taken by the respondents has not been faulted before us on any legally tenable ground. The disciplinary authority has taken a considered view which has been sustained by the appellate and the revisional authority.
13. We find no legal infirmity in the orders which have been passed against the petitioner. in this background, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
GITA MITTAL, J J.R. MIDHA, J AUGUST 28, 2012 aj W.P.(C)No.2212/2012 Page 6 of 6