Dr. S.B.P. Singh vs Union Of India & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 5085 Del

*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                W.P.(C) No.2467/2001 & CM No.4278/2001

                                     Date of Decision: 9th November, 2010

     DR. S.B.P. SINGH                                     ..... Petitioner
                          Through Mr. Shambhu Nath Singh, Adv.

                               Versus

     UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                  ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Atul Nanda, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to
    see the Judgment?                                               Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                           Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the                   Yes
   Digest?

GITA MITTAL, J (Oral)

1. The writ petitioner has assailed the order dated 5th March, 2001 (page

121) whereby the Director General of the Central Reserve Police Force

(hereinafter referred to as `CRPF') agreed with the findings of the inquiry

officer finding the petitioner guilty of the article of charge for which

disciplinary proceedings were held against him and imposed a punishment of

dismissal from service.

2. The facts giving rise to the petition are undisputed. The petitioner is a

trained doctor and had joined the CRPF as Medical Officer on 19 th April, 1988

at their 81st Battalion in Patna. He thereafter served with the various

battalions of the CRPF at various places. So far as the instant case is

concerned, it is necessary to note that on 14th August, 1996, while serving

with the 11th Bn. which had moved to Mathura, the petitioner was also

serving at this station. It is contended that, at this stage, the petitioner

sought a transfer to the Signal Group Centre of the CRPF at Ranchi on the

compassionate ground that his father was not keeping good health and that

the petitioner's cousin brother who was a doctor and was looking after his

father, had prematurely expired on 13th June, 1996. This request was

premised on the petitioner's contention that there was none else at Ranchi to

look after the petitioner's father. The respondents on 27 th February, 1997

rejected the petitioner's request for such a transfer.

3. The petitioner was thereafter granted six days casual leave w.e.f. 16th

June, 1997 to 21st June, 1997 with permission to avail 15th June, 1997 & 22nd

June, 1997 being Sundays as leave. Unfortunately the petitioner failed to

report back to duty and kept sending representations and requests either for

extension of leave or for transfer to Ranchi. It is an admitted position before

us that the petitioner reported to the 36th battalion, where he was then

posted only on 1st June, 1999 after the initiation of the disciplinary

proceedings against him during this period in accordance with law.

4. The challenge on behalf of the petitioner is premised on the contention

that the petitioner being a dutiful son was bound to look after his ailing and

suffering father and that the respondents had failed to consider his request

for transfer to Ranchi on humanitarian ground. It is urged that the petitioner

was compelled to stay away from duty for reasons which were completely

beyond his control on the ground of the extreme ill health of his father and

that the writ petitioner's request for extension of the leave ought to have

been favourably considered. It has also been contended that there was no

justification in the respondent's failing to consider the petitioner's request for

transfer to Ranchi where his father was residing.

5. The petitioner also assails the punishment of the dismissal imposed

upon him on grounds of proportionality and has urged that the circumstances

placed on record by the petitioner did not merit the severe punishment of

dismissal from service.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the

available records.

7. The petitioner has placed strong reliance on his contention that his

father was unwell necessitating his presence with him. In this behalf, the

petitioner is stated to have sent an application dated 23 rd June, 1997 whereby

he had informed the commandant of the 150th Bn. CRPF that his father was in

critical position as he had suffered a severe heart attack and "he was still

under oxygen". The petitioner did not seek any extension of leave. Instead

by this communication he peremptorily informed the respondents that he was

extending his leave till his father did not recover from the present situation.

8. The petitioner also has completely ignored the respondent's intimation

dated 30th June, 1997 directing him to join duty on receipt of the letter. The

petitioner was thereby also informed that he stood transferred by an order

dated 20th June, 1997 to the 36th Battalion and was requested to join

immediately to get clear the proceedings of transfer. On 19th July, 1997, an

order was issued relieving the petitioner w.e.f. 25th June, 1997 on paper

strength for the reason that he was presently overstaying from leave.

It is noteworthy that more than 63 officers were transferred by this

communication.

9. A preliminary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner wherein he

was given opportunity to participate. The petitioner repeatedly delayed the

proceedings in this inquiry on one pretext or another necessitating several

extensions of time to make his statement.

10. The sheer arrogance in the stand adopted by the petitioner is evident

from the tenor of his communications to the respondents. On 21st July, 1997,

the petitioner informed the respondents that if the Director General did not

stay his present transfer order or consider the petitioner's transfer to Ranchi

decided, he would not join his duties. Interestingly, the petitioner refers to his

"ill bed ridden father" in this communication. This stand has been reiterated

in his subsequent communications.

11. The petitioner also could not be pursuaded to act as per prescribed

procedure or to maintain the discipline which he was bound to maintain being

a member of the para military force as per CRPF performing serious duties as

a medical specialists. In this regard, the petitioner himself has placed the

request which he received from the 36th Battalion, CRPF dated 11th August,

1997 requesting him to join duty in the battalion for inclusion of his name.

12. So far as the petitioner's request for his choice posting to Ranchi is

concerned, our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the petitioner

to the communication dated 20th September, 1997 whereby the

Establishment Section of the CRPF has informed that displeasure has been

awarded to the petitioner on account of his conduct. Reference is also made

to his past record and that the petitioner being an indisciplined sheep, his

case for such choice posting was not recommended. It was also pointed out

that the medical officer was absent without leave from the 25 th of June, 1997

and had failed to join the unit and that the disciplinary action was

necessitated against him.

13. So far as the propounded reason of his father's sickness is concerned, it

is essential to note the reasons placed by the petitioner at different places for

his unauthorized absence. In a communication dated 7th May, 1998, the

petitioner informed the commandant of the 11th Battalion that he could not

reach Mathura in response to the letter dated 6th May, 1998 because of the

reason that his younger brother was getting married on 15th May, 1998 and

that being the only brother, his stay was essential. Additionally, it may be

mentioned that the petitioner had also submitted that his father was admitted

"in a nursing home for the last many days and under medical supervision".

No records or documents to substantiate either of these reasons have been

placed either before the respondents or even on the record of the present

case.

14. Reference may also be made to a communication dated 3rd November,

1998 by the petitioner to the Director General of the CRPF wherein it has

been stated by the petitioner that he was on leave since June, 1997 "because

of repeated attacks of anti-social elements on me, my family, house and farm

land". This communication was followed by a letter dated 7th November,

1998 addressed to the Inspector General of the CRPF seeking cancellation of

the order of transfer wherein the petitioner stated that it was not possible for

him to join duty at the 36th Battalion at Manipur with the "ongoing personal

problem". In this representation, it has further been submitted that the

petitioner could not join duty at 36th Battalion because of "My family

problem". Reference is also made to the petitioner's having been on leave in

June, 1997 because of gall bladder stone problem.

15. It is apparent from the above narration that the sole ground which has

been advocated before the respondents as well as this court of the

petitioner's father being so dangerously ill that the petitioner being a doctor,

could not have left him, is clearly not made out by the representations

addressed by the medical officer of the CRPF.

16. It is also evident that the petitioner has shown no respect for duty or

authority in his total belligerence as an officer to the repeated requests of the

respondents, including from the battalion to which he stood transferred, to

resume duties.

17. It has been pointed out that the respondents gave full opportunity to

the petitioner to join duty before taking any action at all against him. The

petitioner was a serving doctor with the CRPF and certainly his services would

have been needed with the force with which he was employed. The

respondents gave the petitioner opportunity of almost 17 months before

issuing the memorandum in November, 1998 proposing to commence

disciplinary proceedings against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil

Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. The petitioner was

admittedly in receipt of the articles of charge, statement of imputations of

misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of which the inquiry was proposed, list

of documents as well as the list of witnesses by whom the charges were

proposed to be sustained. Opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit

his response to the same.

18. The petitioner contested the charges necessitating a full fledged

departmental inquiry. There is no submission before this court that the

petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to defend the case. There is

no contention before us that the procedure prescribed by law was not

complied with or followed or that there was any violation of the principles of

natural justice. On a consideration of the charges leveled against the

petitioner and the evidence led by the parties, the inquiry officer submitted a

report dated 1st February, 1995. The copy of the report was furnished to the

petitioner under cover of a letter dated 7th June, 2000 and the petitioner

made a representation dated 3rd July, 2000 which was duly considered by the

Director General of the CRPF who was the petitioner's disciplinary authority.

On a consideration of the same, the disciplinary authority held that the

charges against the petitioner stood established and had imposed a

punishment of dismissal from service.

19. It is noteworthy that prior to imposing the formal penalty upon the

petitioner, the disciplinary authority had also sought advice of the Union

Public Service Commission which has also been provided to the petitioner and

also placed before us.

20. In view of the sole ground of challenge to the findings of the disciplinary

authority and the punishment imposed upon him, the consideration before

this court is limited. It needs no elaboration that the jurisdiction of this court

in any case in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India into disciplinary proceedings is limited. This court has

undertaken this exercise of examination of the contentions of the petitioner in

view of the ground that the respondents have ignored the material evidence

which was led by the petitioner with regard to his father's sickness and that

the stand of the respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust.

21. So far as the sickness of the petitioner's father is concerned, we find

that the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any record

which would manifest that the petitioner's father was dangerously ill with

effect from 24th June, 1997 till 1st June, 1999 when he joined duties. At

different places, different ailments have been suggested. The inquiry officer

has noted that the petitioner in his statement as well as in his written brief

dated 27th April, 2000 had suggested that his father was getting treatment

from various doctors from time to time for diabetes, heart problem gall

bladder and suspected kidney stone.

22. There is also a reference to the petitioner's father receiving treatment

from 27th October, 1997 to 3rd September, 1998 but a clear finding has been

returned that the petitioner was unable to establish the nature or the gravity

of the sickness or condition. Reference is made to the advice of a doctor on

3rd September, 1998 for various tests and continued treatment of diabetes

and heart problem. There is no material of the petitioner's father being given

artificial respiration. There is nothing to show that he was even under close

medical monitoring, let alone continuous hospitalisation or treatment. The

record placed before the inquiry officer discloses that the petitioner's father

was not under continuous treatment of any particular doctor and did not also

need hospitalization. There is nothing to suggest that the petitioner's father

was bed ridden for this long period of over 700 days for which the petitioner

was absent from duty.

23. We also find that the petitioner's contention that his father's sickness

prevented him from resuming duties, has been utilized as a shield for the

purposes of creating a defence to the disciplinary proceedings as well as for

the purposes of prosecuting the present writ petition. We may note that

there is nothing to shake the findings of the inquiry officer as well as the

disciplinary authority to the effect that the petitioner has failed to

substantiate his contention that his father was so unwell that the petitioner

could not leave his bed side. The record and the above representations

disclose that apart from the petitioner, his family included his mother, brother

and sister who were in a position to look after the father if he was so unwell.

The petitioner's wife is stated to be a practicing doctor and there is not even

a whisper of explanation as to why she was not in a position to look after the

father in case he needed continuous medical supervision.

24. It is also come on record and so noted in the proceedings of the inquiry

officer that in December, 1997, the petitioner's wife was operated at the

Moolchand Hospital, New Delhi. The petitioner does not explain as to how he

was in a position to accompany his wife to New Delhi and how he could leave

his father then and justify his absence from duty.

25. We may observe that even the petitioner's submission in his letter

dated 23rd June, 1997 informing the respondents that he was extending his

leave is unsupported by any medical record, the petitioner has been unable

to support in any manner that his father was fighting for life or that he was in

hospital on artificial respiration.

26. From the above discussion, it is evident that the petitioner has used the

the alleged father's sickness as merely a ruse for staying away from his

assigned duties. During the course of submissions today, we are informed

that the petitioner's wife, a doctor by profession is running a cosmetic

practice at South Delhi and that the whole family is residing at Gurgaon. The

petitioner's address in writ petition filed as back as in 2001 and affidavits is

also of South Delhi. The petitioner is a registered medical practitioner. The

facts placed on record clearly establish design in the petitioner's conduct and

his lack of desire to serve the force. Certainly the propounded excuse is

devoid of factual and legal merit. The petitioner has consciously and

deliberately deprived the force of the services of a medical officer at which

post he was serving.

27. So far as the family members of the petitioner are concerned, there are

four responsible adult family members in the family of the petitioner who may

have very well looked after the petitioner's father if he was unwell as

claimed. We are pained to note that the petitioner does not even mention

existence of such family members let alone suggest any reason why they

were not in a position to look after the ailing father.

28. We may observe that certainly, consciousness and duties towards aged

parents is salutary. However, in the instant case, the petitioner has not been

guided by any element of altruism, duty or responsibility towards his parents

in the manner in which he has conducted himself. It is in fact unfortunate

that the petitioner has utilized the shield of age and sickness of his father to

justify his indiscipline and misconduct. It is apparent that the petitioner is

well established in life and is pursuing this writ petition with mala fide

intention with no sense of devotion to duties.

29. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner's contention that his

leave application merited favourable consideration is clearly devoid of any

merit. For the same reasons, we are unable to hold that the punishment

which has been imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity

of the charges for which the inquiry proceedings were conducted against

him. It is also noteworthy that in the communications referred to above, the

petitioner has not sought extension of leave but has arrogantly and

belligerently informed the respondents that he is extending his leave and that

he will not join his assigned duties. On the other hand, the respondents have

adopted a humanitarian approach in giving the repeated opportunities to the

petitioner. There is no substance in the petitioner's contention that the

petitioner has adopted an inhumanitarian approach. The petitioner was a

member of the disciplined force and was expected to act in a responsible

manner. The responsibility on a medical officer who is a trained expert, is

even more serious. In our view, the respondents have been over generous in

granting repeated opportunities to the petitioner in resuming duties. No

member of the disciplined force can stay away from duty and adopt the

completely arrogant stand which the petitioner has adopted. At no point of

time he has shown any repentance or remorse for his absence. In our view,

this writ petition is wholly devoid of merit and is gross abuse of the process of

law. The petitioner deserves to be burdened with heavy costs. Valuable

judicial time has been caused to be expended on this petition for over nine

years. Public money has been caused to be utilised by the respondents in

defending the same which must be compensated.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- to

be paid to the respondents. The costs shall be paid to the respondents within

a period of six weeks from today.

CM No.4278/2001

In view of the orders passed in the writ petition, this application is

rendered infructuous and is also dismissed.

GITA MITTAL, J

J.R. MIDHA, J November 09, 2010 aa