Gauhati High Court
WA/22/2024 on 6 June, 2024
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010009952024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Writ Appeal No.22/2024
Shri Ranjan Kumar Singha,
S/O- Late Lakhi Kanta Singha,
R/o- Nityanandapur, Part II, P.S. Lala,
Dist.- Hailakandi, Assam- 788168.
....Appellant
-Versus-
1. The Union of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi,
PIN- 110001.
2. Inspector General of Police,
Rajasthan Sector, CRPF, Jaipur,
Rajasthan, PIN- 754133.
3. The DIGP, Range HQ, CRPF,
Golf Course Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan,
PIN- 305001
4. The DIGP, Group Centre-I, CRPF,
Ajmer, Rajasthan, PIN- 305001
5. The Commandant,
147 Batalion, CRPF,
Kashipur, Silchar, PIN-788009
Page No.# 2/6
6. The Commandant,
03 Batalion, CRPF,
C/O 56 A.P.O., Indra Nagar,
Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, PIN-190004
7. The Assistant Commandant,
03 Batalion, CRPF,
C/O 56 A.P.O., Indra Nagar,
Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir,
PIN-190004
....Respondents
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
For the appellant : Mr. P.K. Deka,
Mr. P. Daimary, Advocates
For the respondents : Mr. G. Pegu, Central Govt. Counsel
Date of Hearing : 03.06.2024
Date of Judgment : 06.06.2024
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.)
1. This intra-Court appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the
judgment and order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in
WP(C) 2611/2021 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been
dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Constable
Page No.# 3/6
(GD) in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in the year 2006. After completion of
his basic training, the appellant was posted in 147 th Battalion of CRPF at Kashipur,
Silchar, Assam. Later on, he was transferred to the 3 rd Battalion Head Quarter at
Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir. During his posting at Srinagar, the appellant submitted
an application for grant of leave of 15 days to attend the marriage of his sister. In
the said application, the leave period was mentioned from 14.03.2019 to
02.04.2019. It appears that though the said leave was sanctioned, the appellant
failed to join his duties after expiry of the said leave period and he reported to the
Battalion Head Quarter only on 04.09.2019.
3. The appellant/writ petitioner has contended before the learned Single Judge
that he was suffering from psychiatric disease for a long period of time and was
undergoing treatment as per the advice of the doctor. It has also been contended
that his sister's marriage was postponed due to illness of the father of the groom
and on account of that he went into depression and ultimately he lost his mental
balance. Thereafter the wife of the appellant took him to the Silchar Medical
College and Hospital (hereinafter referred to as 'SMCH') and later on, his wife took
him to NEIGRIHMS, Meghalaya, Shillong and on account of these, he failed to join
his duties after expiry of the leave period.
4. The Commandant 3rd Battalion, CRPF stationed at Srinagar, Jammu &
Kashmir vide notice dated 18.09.2019 initiated departmental proceeding against
the appellant levelling three charges. All the said charges were in relation to the
absence of the petitioner from duties on various dates without obtaining
permission from the competent officer. Pursuant to the show-cause notice, the
appellant submitted his reply on 27.09.2019 and the Enquiry Officer submitted the
enquiry report on 09.12.2019 holding that all the charges levelled against the
appellant had been proved. The Commandant 3rd Battalion accepted the enquiry
Page No.# 4/6
report and passed the impugned order dated 22.01.2020 imposing the penalty of
removal from service w.e.f. 23.01.2020. Appeal preferred by the appellant against
the order of removal was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated
12.06.2020. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant has preferred the writ
petition before the learned Single Judge.
5. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the counsel for the parties and after
going through the material as well as the record of the departmental proceeding
relating to the writ petitioner and after taking into consideration Rule 27 of Central
Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, has recorded the following findings:
"14. All the 3 (three) charges are in respect of the absence from his duties on
the dates mentioned under each head of charge. On the other hand, the medical
documents, which are available in the pleadings as well as reflected in the
records show that the petitioner required treatment under the psychiatric
department. It is also seen from the Enquiry Report that the medical documents
were also taken into consideration. In both the OPD records, there is no medical
advice that the petitioner is not fit for reporting to duty. Both these OPD reports
render medical advice that the petitioner should be given light duty without
arms and under supervision. Under such circumstances, it has to be accepted
that the petitioner was fit for duty but under supervision and without fire arms.
From the OPD report, there are 2 (two) other aspects, which are evident namely,
that the petitioner has expressed disinterest in work and the petitioner is also
on and off alcohol. The charges, which are brought against the petitioner are
specifically with regard to absence/neglect from discharging his duties. With
regard to the dates mentioned under the various charge heads, no material is
furnished by the petitioner to suggest that he was under conservative medical
treatment or that there was medical advice that the petitioner was not found to
be fit for duty.
15. Under such circumstances, merely because of the petitioner was
prescribed medicines by the psychiatric OPD or that he required medical follow
Page No.# 5/6
ups cannot be accepted to be a ground, to condone his absence from duty
without permission. In the absence of proper medical documents to suggest that
the petitioner was not in a position to discharge his duties on the dates/periods
mentioned under the charges, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner was
prevented from attending to his duties due to medical reasons or treatment. The
challenge made to the enquiry proceedings and the consequential orders
passed that they were conducted in violation of the procedure prescribed cannot
also be accepted to be correct as the records produced by the Department belie
the contentions of the petitioner. From the records it is seen that the enquiry
was conducted as per the procedure prescribed as also the impugned order
passed by the disciplinary authority. The Judgments referred to by the learned
counsel for the petitioner does not come to his aid in the facts and
circumstances of the case. On the contrary, in respect of dismissal from service
for unauthorized absence, a Division Bench of this Court upon due
consideration of the materials available upheld such a penalty imposed.
Reference may be made to Irfan Ali reported in 2012 (1) GLT 542."
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has
not appreciated the documents relied upon by the appellant/writ petitioner in right
perspective. It is also submitted that the disciplinary authority as well as the
appellate authority did not duly consider the Ext-15, which is a slip dated
04.05.2019 with regard to the treatment of the mental stress of the appellant in
NEIGRIHMS; Ext-16, which is a letter dated 18.06.2019 written by the wife of the
charged official to the Commandant, 03 Battalion praying for extension of leave;
and Ext-17, which is a slip with regard to the treatment of mental stress of the
appellant in SMCH. It is contended that it is clear from the above referred
documents that the appellant failed to join his duties due to his illness and the
absence of the appellant from duty was not intentional.
7. Having considered the said argument, we find that the learned Single Judge
Page No.# 6/6
has taken into consideration the slips regarding the treatment given to the
appellant for his mental stress and a categorical finding has been recorded by the
learned Single Judge that in the OPD reports suggesting medical advice to the
appellant, nowhere it was mentioned that the appellant was not fit to join duties.
On the other hand, it only suggested that the appellant should be given light duty
without arms and under supervision. The learned Single Judge has also observed
that from the OPD reports, it also emerges that the appellant has expressed
disinterest in work and he is also on and off alcohol.
8. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, we
are of the opinion that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge is one of
the possible views which is not liable to be interfered with and hence, we do not
find merit in this appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
No order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
