Delhi High Court
Ram Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 23 March, 2021
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3567/2021
RAM SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankit Monga, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for
GNCTD with Mr. Nitesh Kumar
Singh, Mrs. Tania Ahlawat and Ms.
Palak Rohmetra, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 23.03.2021
CM No. 10786/2021 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.3567/2021
3. The petition impugns the order dated 9th April, 2019 of Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi of dismissal of
O.A. No. 518/2014 preferred by the petitioner, impugning the disciplinary
proceedings held against him on the charge of unauthorised absentation
from duty for a period of 39 months 20 days 22 hours and 15 minutes,
resulting in an inquiry report dated 8th November, 2012, of the charge
having stood proved and the punishment meted out to the petitioner on 4 th
January, 2013, of dismissal from service and the order dated 5 th September,
2013 of dismissal of departmental appeal preferred thereagainst.
4. This petition itself has been preferred and has come up for hearing
after nearly two years of the impugned order dated 9 th April, 2019.
Considering the relief claimed by the petitioner, of reinstatement in service,
the delay of two years on the part of the petitioner, though without job, in
preferring this petition, speaks volumes of the conduct of the petitioner even
now, though claiming to be aggrieved from dismissal from service on the
ground of unauthorised absentation from duty.
5. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to paragraph 9
of the impugned order, where CAT, after discussion, has concluded that the
petitioner had been unable to point out any violation of any of the principles
of natural justice or of the procedural rules for holding departmental
enquiry. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner,
during the disciplinary proceedings, had submitted his medical records
comprising of 145 pages and which were neither discussed by the Inquiry
Officer nor has any finding been given on the basis thereof. It is contended
that the petitioner was mentally disturbed and thus had absented from duty
and for the said reason, the punishment meted out is too harsh in the
circumstances. It is further argued that the petitioner is fully recovered now
and is in a position to serve.
6. We have asked the counsel for the petitioner to show to us the best
medical record claimed to be produced by the petitioner before the Inquiry
Officer.
7. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to Annexure P-
1 to the petition, being a medical certificate dated 14th August, 2006, issued
by Medical Officer of some hospital in Alwar, Rajasthan (from the stamp on
the said document the name of the hospital cannot be deciphered); the typed
copy of the said medical certificate is as under:-
"Medical Sickness Certificate
Medical Care Rule 76
Date: 14-8-06
I, Vaid Mohan Lal, after having carefully examined the matter
personally, hereby certify that Sh.Ram Singh, Rank Constable,
whose signatures appended here-in-below, is suffering from
brain disorder and I advise his absence from duty from 14.08.06
to 28.08.06 is extremely necessary for his recovery.
Sign. Patient : Sd/- Ram Singh
Name & Address : Ct.Ram Singh, 1949-T
Office : Traffic
Sd/- Vaid Mohan Lal
Signatures of Medical Officer"
8. As would be evident from above, the person issuing the aforesaid
certificate has not even described himself as a doctor. Moreover, the
ailment from which the petitioner is certified as suffering from, is stated to
be 'Brain Disorder' and which is a terminology known to be used by quacks
rather than medical professionals. The said medical certificate does not
inspire any confidence and does not prove what is being argued by the
counsel for the petitioner.
9. The counsel for the respondents Delhi Traffic Police, appearing on
advance notice states that it is not that as if the Inquiry Officer has not
considered the aforesaid certificate or other documents but has observed that
neither the original was produced nor was any doctor brought in during the
inquiry to prove that the petitioner was unwell or unable to attend the duty.
10. Be that as it may, we have enquired from the counsel for the
petitioner, whether the petitioner, before absenting himself, made any
application for leave and/or was granted any leave.
11. The answer is in the negative.
12. No employee, lest a public servant performing a vital public duty, as
of managing traffic in any city, can afford to at his ipse dixit absent himself,
whenever so desires, without even applying for leave and the same being
sanctioned. If all public servants are to have this freedom, no public service
can be rendered efficiently. If the petitioner had applied for leave and was
not granted the same, the petitioner had remedies thereagainst. However the
petitioner did not even apply for leave, under the impression that being a
government employee he can serve and join whenever desires and that his
employment is secure and he cannot be removed therefrom. Merely
canvassing illness, that too not for pursuing a leave application but when
faced with disciplinary enquiry, does not entitle the petitioner to any
sympathy and if such sympathy were to be shown by the Courts, the entire
public services would come to a standstill, leaving the tax payers in a lurch.
13. Rather, the conduct of the petitioner, of waiting for two years before
preferring this petition , also shows that the petitioner is not really
interested in working and is only biding his time, to be able to earn pension
for life, by seeking reinstatement.
14. We may mention that it is also the finding against the petitioner, that
the petitioner, prior to the aforesaid unauthorised absentation of 39 months
22 days 12 hours and 15 minutes also, throughout his career, has been guilty
of absenting himself unauthorizedly from duty, from time to time.
15. There is no merit in the petition.
16. Dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
AMIT BANSAL, J.
MARCH 23, 2021
SU..
