Delhi High Court
Ct/Gd Anwar Khan vs Uoi & Ors. on 30 July, 2012
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : July 30, 2012
+ WP(C) 3941/2012
CT/GD ANWAR KHAN ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Dhananjai Jain, Advocate.
versus
UOI & ORS. ....Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Sunil Kumar, Advocate and
Mr.Alok Kumar Shukla, Advocate
with Mr.Vijay Kumar Rout, Pairvi
Officer, CRPF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. The record has been produced and has been
perused.
2. The petitioner challenges the order dated
December 29, 2010 dismissing him from service as also the
order dated March 28, 2011 rejecting the statutory appeal and
finally the order dated November 10, 2011 dismissing the
Revision Petition filed by the petitioner against the appellate
order.
3. As per the petitioner, he started suffering from
depression due to the rigours of the service which he had to
render as a Constable Driver with CRPF and for which he was
treated for a psychological disorder at the CRPF Composite
Hospital and then at Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied
Science at Delhi. But we note that as per documents filed,
pertaining to the psychological disorder statedly suffered by
the petitioner, the record would show that the disorder was
mild; the petitioner would have occasional flight of ideas. The
record would further show that on April 28, 2010 the treatment
was stopped. The petitioner was declared fully fit. The record
also reveals that the petitioner was performing his duties when
he was simultaneously under medication for a physiological
disorder, and obviously the psychological disorder was not of a
kind which rendered petitioner totally incapacitated i.e. having
no control over his faculties.
4. As per the petitioner, on March 22, 2010 he
requested one Faizuddin for an out-pass to take his son to the
hospital and Mr.Faizuddin demanded `10,000/- to be paid to
Dr.Himanshu Singh, the doctor who was treating the petitioner
for the psychological disorder, against whom petitioner claims,
that he i.e. Dr.Himanshu Singh demanded said amount to
declare the petitioner fit on January 28, 2010. The petitioner
claims that on March 26, 2010, Dr.Himanshu Singh thrashed
him and as a result he suffered injuries and in respect of which
the petitioner places reliance upon Annexure P-4.
5. With respect to Annexure P-4, we find it to be an
opinion sought by a doctor at Institute of Human Behaviour
and Allied Sciences with respect to petitioner complaining of
purulent discharge from an old stitch mark below umbilical
region, and in respect whereof it is impossible to link the same
to any thrashing. It appears that counsel for the petitioner has
picked up all and sundry documents to cook up a story.
6. As per the petitioner he was never served with any
charge-sheet and one fine day he was dismissed from service.
7. The petitioner has made repeated reference to the
alleged ill treatment by Dr.Himanshu, who has not even been
made a party.
8. The record produced would show that the petitioner
certainly came under a stress which adversely affected his
mental faculties, but not to an extent where he became a
patient of chronic psychiatric disorder.
9. The record would reveal that on March 23, 2010,
the petitioner threatened to kill his superior officer
Hav./Dvr.Faizuddin, who reported the matter and taking a
serious view thereof the petitioner was charge-sheeted. The
record would reveal that when the charge-sheet was sought to
be personally served upon the petitioner, he refused to receive
the same on July 16, 2010.
10. Now, the petitioner's story in the writ petition that
Faizuddin did not issue him an out-pass so that he could take
his son to the hospital, is an obvious ruse, for the reason
Faizuddin is a Havalder Driver and is not the Competent
Authority to issue an out-pass to the petitioner. The whole
story weaved in the writ petition that Dr.Himanshu wanted a
bribe and Faizuddin became a helping hand is a figment of
imagination.
11. The record produced would reveal that it is a case
of self-denial of an opportunity to defend, evidenced by the
fact that the petitioner not only refused to receive the charge-
sheet but also the notices sent by the Inquiry Officer.
12. The appellate order as also the revisional order
have noted the non co-operative attitude of the petitioner and
there being a total disconnect in the theory propounded by the
petitioner and the incident.
13. The two orders have noted the fairly poor service
profile of the petitioner, who served for 15 years when the
penalty was levied; with reference to six adverse entries in the
ACR record, two punishments in service and the petitioner's
attitude of shirking work.
14. Noting as aforesaid we dismiss the writ petition but
refrain from imposing costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
JULY 30, 2012
dk
