Rajbir Singh vs Union Of India & Others
1998 Latest Caselaw 619 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner by this writ petition seeks quashing of the order of removal from service dated 1.11.1993 and also a writ of mandamus to the respondents to reinstate him into service with all consequential benefits. The impugned order for removal from service had been passed in the exercise of powers under Rule 29(A) Schedule II read with Rule 31(b) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules.

2. Petitioner, admittedly, remained absent from duty from 11.3.1993 for a period of nearly 234 days, without permission. Petitioner was earlier on sick leave from 8.2.1993 to 10.3.1993. He was, however, certified fit to resume duty on 11.3.1993 by the Medical Officer. Petitioner, however, left the quarters with his family for his native place without taking leave or permission. Petitioner claims that he could not resume his duty due to ill health and constant mental and physical torture by his colleagues as well as some senior officers. Respondents sent a number of call notices, requiring the petitioner to join duty, but he failed to do so. Accordingly, a Charge-memo was sent to the petitioner. Petitioner duly received the same and sent his reply dated 22.6.1993, denying the charges and claiming that he had committed no mistake and that he had been caused mental and physical torture, compelling him to leave the place of his duty to save his body and limbs from further deterioration. Reply sent by the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory and an enquiry was ordered.

3. Petitioner did not participate in the enquiry proceedings and was proceeded ex-parte. He, however, sent a communication dated 25.9.1993 claiming that he was on sick leave while at the unit and his wife had brought him for check-up at the native place and he remained under medical treatment till 24.9.1993. He requested for the enquiry being dropped and being restored in service. Again, vide his representation dated 15.10.1993, he stated that he had become well after a long time and recovered from sickness and was in a position to take up responsibilities and discharge his duties. He requested that he be attached temporarily either to the CISF headquarters at New Delhi and if that was not feasible, he be shifted out from Durgapur and posted at Calcutta. It is in these circumstances that the order of removal from service was passed on 1.11.1993 and the appeal preferred against it by the petitioner, was rejected on 16.2.1994.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who has urged that petitioner is a victim of circumstances and the action taken by the respondents was harsh and vindictive. It is urged that petitioner's appeal was rejected by the respondents in a mechanical manner.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that petitioner remained absent from duty without leave, despite being declared fit to resume duty on 11.3.1993. Learned counsel also assailed the credibility of the medical certificate produced by the petitioner.

6. We have perused the file. We find no material in support of petitioner's allegation regarding any mental or physical torture by his colleagues. He did not produce any medical evidence or reasonable explanation for his absence even before the Appellate Authority. Admittedly, petitioner has remained absent without leave. He did not even respond to the call up notices. He received the notice of enquiry but did not participate therein. Petitioner also submitted his reply to the charge and the appeal,which are not satisfactory at all. Even if the petitioner was under mental depression, he should have availed of the medical facilities which were available at the place of his posting or could have been made available. There can be no justification for his deserting the unit and leaving the quarter with his family without permission.

7. Petitioner, as member of the Central Industrial Security force, has also to observe strict discipline, which is the hall mark of this service and armed forces. Petitioner has failed to tender any plausible and tenable justification for his absence from duty. We find no merit in the petitioner's case, who has abstained from duty for a period of over eight months, claiming to be sick.

8. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed.