Allahabad High Court
Shiv Kumar Mishra vs Union Of India And Others on 10 May, 2013
Bench: Arun Tandon
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37375 of 1997
Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Mishra
Respondent :- Union Of India And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Ram Ji Srivastava,A.K.Pandey,R.K. Yadav
Respondent Counsel :- S.C.,Lal Ji Sinha
Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Cause shown for the absence of counsel for the petitioner on 22.07.2010 is to the satisfaction of the Court. The order dated 22.07.2010 is, therefore, recalled.
Writ petition is restored to its original number.
Restoration application is allowed.
Dated :10.05.2013
VR/37375 of 1997 (On Appl.)
Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.
Writ petition is restored to its original number.
Dated :10.05.2013
VR/37375 of 1997 (On W.P.)
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Heard Shri A.K.Pandey on behalf of the petitioner.
Petitioner before this Court was employed as Constable in Railway Protection Force, Eastern Railway and was posted at Mughal Sarai. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 11.09.1993 alleging disobedience of the lawful orders of his officers. The petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry on the same date with a direction that he shall report for signing of the attendance in the office of Deputy Superintendent Camp Office.
According to the petitioner he continued to record his attendance up to 24.09.1993. Thereafter because of mental ailment suffered by him, he left the place where he was required to remain present. Petitioner claims that he was under medical treatment of a psychiatrist till 22.03.1995. When he regained his mental balance, he resumed his duties with Railway Police Force on the said date.
So far as this departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner is concerned, suffice is to record that it resulted in an order of punishment dated 04.03.1994. Petitioner was reduced to three stages for three years w.e.f. 01.03.1994.
In order to keep the record straight, it may be recorded that his suspension was revoked on 15.10.1993. The chapter in that regard stands closed and nothing further is required to be added in that respect.
For his absence from duty since 24.09.1993 and even after revocation of the order of suspension and the departmental enquiry having been concluded as aforesaid till 22.03.1995, a second charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 22.03.1995 under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, stating therein that the petitioner absented himself without any leave unauthorizedly. One Ram Vilas was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses as well as defence statement and examined the other evidence. He submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of unauthorized absence for the period between 24.03.1993 to 23.11.1995. A copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner with an opportunity to submit his comments in respect of the findings recorded on 10.09.1995. Despite due service of the enquiry report, the petitioner did not respond. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and published the petitioner with removal from service vide order dated 07.07.1995.
The disciplinary authority recorded that in reply to the charge of his unauthorized absence between 1994 to 1995, petitioner had annexed certain photostat copies of the medical certificates with the plea that he was mentally sick and and was not in a position to resume his duties. The disciplinary authority found that the documents filed by the petitioner reflected that he was diagnosed Neurotic Depression on 08.10.1993. On 07.12.1993 the remarks of the Medical Officer was 'Mentally Stable'.
It has further been recorded that absolutely no evidence had been led by the petitioner in form of any medical treatment or advise to establish that he was advised bed rest or that he was unable to actually report for duties. In these circumstances it has been held that the petitioner was guilty of unauthorized absence for a period of one year and eight months from duty without intimation to the authority concerned which was a fairly long period. Therefore, he has been punished with removal from service w.e.f. 27.09.1995.
Against the order of punishment the petitioner filed an appeal before the next higher authority. The appeal has been dismissed under order dated 30.12.1996 after recording that in the facts of the case, departmental enquiry has been held in accordance with the rules applicable. Petitioner has been found guilty of the charge of unauthorized leave for sufficient long period. The punishment imposed, in the facts of the case, is justified.
This petition has been filed against the aforesaid two orders and it is the case of the petitioner that he was medically unwell, therefore, could not understand implications of being absent from duty, which aspect of the matter has been ignored by the authorities below. It is then contended that the punishment inflicted is not commensurate with the charge found proved.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition.
From the evidence which had been produced during departmental enquiry as well as from the order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, it is apparently clear that a clear finding of fact has been recorded that the petitioner has deliberately not reported for duties for a period of more than one year and eight months. His plea that he was mentally sick to the extent of being incapable of resuming his duties could not be proved by any cogent evidence, therefore, not accepted. Findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority are based on appreciation of evidence which cannot be termed as perverse or based on no evidence. The departmental enquiry has been held in accordance with the rules applicable.
So far as the plea of punishment being disproportionate to the charges found proved is concerned, suffice is to record that the Railway Protection Force is a disciplined force. Long unauthorized absence for a period of one year and eight months is too long a period and a serious misconduct. Therefore, the punishment inflicted, in the facts of the case, cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charge found proved. No interference is warranted against the orders impugned.
Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
Dated :10.05.2013
VR/37375 of 1997
