The Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court comprising Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal refused to interfere in the disciplinary authority’s decision, which dismissed the CRPF Constable-petitioner from service as he did not report for duty on completion of the leave period.
Background:
This appeal was filed by the original petitioner to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 10.12.2021. The appellant was engaged as a constable driver in CRPF. He was granted leave from 21.08.2013 to 19.09.2013. He however did not report for duty on completion of the leave period. He remained unauthorisedly absent without sanction of leave from 20.09.2013 onwards without any intimation to the department.
The departmental enquiry was therefore initiated against him. He did not participate in the enquiry. The final order was passed by the disciplinary authority on 10.09.2014 imposing punishment of dismissal. During the inquiry, it appears that the department had discharged the charge-sheet, list of witnesses, inquiry officer’s report at all stages but there was no response from the petitioner.
The petitioner had challenged the order of the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority converted the order of dismissal to removal from service. Eventually, the petitioner approached this Court and challenged the punishment imposed on him. His petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge upon which this appeal has been filed.
Submissions made by counsel:
Appearing for the appellant-original petitioner it was submitted that looking at the long clean service of the petitioner extreme punishment of removal from service should not have been imposed.
He submitted that the petitioner was suffering from illness on account of which he could not resume his duties. He lastly contended that none of the communications of the department reached to him because the petitioner was not living at his residence.
Observation of the Court:
The court was of the view that Petitioner has not made out any case for interference. Court recalled that the petitioner was engaged as constable of CRPF which is a disciplined force. He remained unauthorisedly absent without sanctioned leave or communication to the department for about one year. This was a clear case of misconduct. Section 10 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 pertains to less heinous offences and includes the act of a member of the force of remaining to absent himself without leave, or without sufficient cause overstaying the leave granted to him.
For any such less heinous offences the punishment prescribed under Section 10 of the said Act is imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to three months’ pay, or with both. Section 11 pertains to minor punishments. Sub-section (1) of Section 11 provides that the commandant or any other authority or officer as may be prescribed, may, subject to any rules made under the Act, award in lieu of, or in addition to, suspension or dismissal any one or more of the punishments to any member of the force whom he considers to be guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, ornremissness in the discharge of the duty or any duty or other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force. One of the punishmentsprescribed is removal from the office.
Thus for the act of remaining absent without leave, under Section 10 the competent authority could impose a punishment of imprisonment. Under Section 11 the punishment of dismissal or removal from service can also be considered. As noted, the disciplinary authority had imposed the punishment of dismissal from service which was converted by the appellate authority to removal from service. These punishments are thus within the competence of the said authority to impose. The misconduct of not reporting for duty for over one year without sanctioned leave was established during the course of enquiry.
Bench highlighted the fact that the petitioner has not produced any evidence of his suffering from such illness which prevented him from resuming his duty and which prevented him from appearing in the departmental enquiry and any rate from communicating to the department his inability to appear. All communications were made by the department at his residential address. Despite this the petitioner did not appear before the disciplinary authority. The petitioner cannot complain that the enquiry was conducted ex-parte.
Under the circumstances, the Bench did not find any reason to interfere. The case of punishment essentially rests with the disciplinary authority. The Court would not interfere unless the punishment shocks the conscience of the Court. Reference in this respect was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in AIR 1996 SC 484.
Accordingly, the Petition was disposed of.
Case Title: Sep/driver Ramraj Meena v. Union of India
Picture Source :
