Delhi High Court
Om Prakash Meena vs Union Of India And Ors on 19 January, 2022
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1138/2022
OM PRAKASH MEENA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Amit Chawla, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Dev P.Bhardweaj, CGSC with
Ms.Anubha Bhardwaj, Advocate for
UOI.
% Date of Decision: 19th January, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (ORAL)
C.M.No.3291/2022
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.1138/2022
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated
28th November, 2017 whereby the Petitioner has been removed from service,
order dated 05th March, 2019 rejecting the appeal preferred by the Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
21:41:21
and the order dated 03rd June, 2021 rejecting the revision petition filed by
the Petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Petitioner was
appointed as a constable in the CISF on 19th September, 2011 and deputed to
CISF unit RTC, Barwaha in August 2012 after completion of training. He
states that on 01st November, 2015 while working at CISF unit RTC
Barwaha, the Petitioner met with an accident and his right elbow got
fractured. He further states that the Petitioner underwent an operation at
BHRC, Indore, however, it was unsuccessful and the Petitioner was referred
for further treatment. He states that the Petitioner requested for a transfer
from RTC Barwaha to RTC Behror or Deoli to enable him to proceed with
the surgery he was required to undergo and also for the post medical
assistance. Considering his medical conditon, the petitioner was directed to
join regular posting at CISF Unit DMRC.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that in light of expiry of the
outliving permission on 9th November, 2016, the Petitioner preferred a
representation dated 10th November, 2016 requesting for an extension of the
permission as he still needed regular medical assistance. He further states
that the Petitioner made several representations to the Respondents against
his transfer orders requesting them to retain the Petitioner at Delhi so that he
could continue his medical treatment.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that on 01st July, 2017 the
respondents disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner thereby directing
the Petitioner to first comply with the transfer order and then prefer an
appeal. He states that the Petitioner was already in depression and had been
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
21:41:21
under medication for various other issues like insomnia, forgetfulness and
suicidal tendencies and was also advised bed rest for a period of one month
pursuant to his medical examination. He further states that a Charge Memo
dated 13th July, 2017 was issued to the Petitioner and disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner vide notice dated
18th August, 2017. He states that after the enquiry was conducted the
impugned order dated 28th November, 2018 removing the Petitioner from
service was issued.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the punishment of
removal from service is disproportionately harsh as compared to the charges
leveled against him. He also states that due to his bad mental and physical
condition, he was not able to submit his appeal against the order of removal
in time and the same was rejected by the Respondents as being time-barred
without going into the merits of the case.
7. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the Petitioner was dismissed
on the charge of refusing to accept transfer order dated 28th January, 2017 as
well as being absent from duty and not reporting to the new unit as per
transfer order and over staying leave.
8. In fact, the Petitioner had approached this Court in the year 2016 by
filing a writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.12107/2016, challenging his transfer
order, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22nd December,
2016 directing him to join his place of posting within a week from the date
of the order. However, the Petitioner did not rejoin his duty.
9. Keeping in view the dismissal of the earlier writ petition as well as the
fact that the Petitioner did not join his duty, this Court is of the view that the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
21:41:21
present writ petition is bereft of any merit. Accordingly, the same is
dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
JANUARY 19, 2022
KA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
21:41:21
