Delhi High Court
V Venugopal Rao vs Uoi & Ors on 28 August, 2012
Author: Gita Mittal
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
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
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
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
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
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
