Patna High Court
Sunil Kumar Ram vs The Union Of India on 21 April, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2770 of 2004
======================================================
1.1. Most. Baidhyawati, Widow of Late Sunil Kumar Ram, At present Resident
of Mohalla - Lakrighat, Musahari, Chandwara, P.S. - Town Thana,
Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur, PIN - 842001, State - Bihar.
1.2. Aman Siddharth, Son of Late Sunil Kumar Ram, At present Resident of
Mohalla - Lakrighat, Musahari, Chandwara, P.S. - Town Thana,
Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur, PIN - 842001, State - Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Home, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Department of Home, New Delhi.
3. The Director General of Police/C.R.P.F., New Delhi.
4. The Inspector General of Police, B/S C.R.P.F., Bihar Sector, Patna- 14.
5. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police, C.R.P.F. Bihar Sector, Patna.
6. The Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, C.R.P.F.,
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birju Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Shweta, Advocate
Mr. Ajit Anand, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dr. Ravi Ranjan, SCGSC
Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 21-04-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Union of India.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
inadvertently the order dated 27.01.2025 could not be placed on
record. It was directed to the petitioner to file a compromise
which is alleged to be done between the petitioner No. 1 and her
Patna High Court CWJC No.2770 of 2004 dt.21-04-2025
2/11
late husband for closing the criminal case pending between
them.
3. It transpires to this Court that the said
compromise petition pending between the petitioner No. 1 and
her late husband shall be of no use in the present case, as the
present writ petition is basically a litigation between the
husband of deceased petitioner with his employer, i.e.,
respondents and as such, non-filing of the compromise petition
is hereby ignored.
4. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
That this is an application for
setting aside the Order dated 14.7.03,
bearing No.R(iii) -05/02-BS-EC-3(iii),
passed by the Respondent No.4 (Annexure-
8), The Inspector General of police, B/S,
CRPF, Patna by which the revision petition
of the petitioner has been rejected,
upholding/ confirming the appellate Order
dated 15.4.02, bearing No.P(iii)-
6KR(GCMZR)/02-EC.I(Annexure-5), and
also upholding the final order of punishment
dated 19.9.2000(Annexure-3), passed by the
Respondent No.6 in the Departmental
proceeding against the petitioner, by which
the petitioner has been removed from service
Patna High Court CWJC No.2770 of 2004 dt.21-04-2025
3/11
treating the period between 11.2.2000 to
21.6.2000
as non-working period and the
subsequent period till date of removal also
to be treated "as such" and then directing the
respondent authorities to allow the
petitioner to gain his duty and perform his
work and thereafter to pay the salary of the
petitioner alongwith the dues in accordance
with law and for any other relief which the
petitioner is entitled for.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the original petitioner was a Safai Karmchari at the Group
Centre, C.R.P.F., Muzaffarpur on 13.08.1994 and was given
Force No. 941410015. Counsel further submits that the original
petitioner was performing his duties to the full satisfaction of his
superior authorities. It is further submitted that the original
petitioner received information on 10.02.2000 that his son, aged
about 4½ years, had suffered severe burn injuries. Upon
receiving this information, he informed his superior/competent
authority, but leave was not granted to him. Even then, due to
his mental state, he remained absent from duty with effect from
11.02.2000. Counsel further submits that the original petitioner
went into mental depression and remained under medical
treatment by a local neuropsychiatrist from 10.02.2000 to
20.06.2000. In the meantime, the petitioner's injured son also
Patna High Court CWJC No.2770 of 2004 dt.21-04-2025
succumbed to his injuries. The original petitioner was advised
by his doctor to report for duty on 21.06.2000 along with a
medical certificate at the centre. It was submitted that the
original petitioner was kept under suspension for three months
but was paid subsistence allowance for only one month.
Thereafter, he was asked to sign various documents, and
subsequently, a final order of punishment was served upon him
on 19.09.2000, informing him that, in the departmental
proceeding, he had been removed from service, treating the
period between 11.02.2000 and the date of removal, i.e.,
19.09.2000, as a non-working period. Counsel further submits
that the original petitioner's signatures were obtained on various
documents before the final order of punishment, along with a
copy of the depositions, was served upon him. It is further
submitted that the original petitioner was never informed about
the date of commencement of the proceedings, nor was he
served with any copy of the enquiry report. He was never given
an opportunity to file a show-cause against the proposed
punishment of removal from service.
6. Counsel further submits that the original
petitioner had raised his grievances before the superior
authorities several times and, in this regard, he has filed a
Patna High Court CWJC No.2770 of 2004 dt.21-04-2025
representation on 05.10.2001. He further submits that the
original petitioner moved before this Hon'ble Court in CWJC
No. 16048 of 2001, and after hearing the parties on 02.01.2002,
this Hon'ble Court directed the original petitioner to prefer an
appeal before the competent authority. Thereafter, the original
petitioner filed an appeal, which was subsequently dismissed.
Thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision petition. During the
pendency of the revision, the original petitioner filed another
writ petition, CWJC No. 3948 of 2003, which was disposed of
by order dated 22.04.2003, directing the respondent authorities
to decide the original petitioner's revision application within
three months. Subsequently, a final order was passed on the
revision application on 14.07.2003, upholding both the appellate
order and the final order of punishment. Thereafter, the original
petitioner filed the present writ petition, challenging the original
order, dated 19.09.2000 (annexed as Annexure- 3), the appellate
order dated 15.04.2002 (annexed as Annexure- 5) and the
revisional order dated 14.07.2003 (annexed as Annexure- 8).
7. Counsel further submits that due to the illness of
the original petitioner, he became depressed with effect from
10.02.2000. He subsequently produced a certificate from a local
neuropsychiatrist stating that he was suffering from mental
Patna High Court CWJC No.2770 of 2004 dt.21-04-2025
depression from 10.02.2000 to 20.06.2000. Counsel further
submits that none of his applications, documents, or medical
certificates submitted by the original petitioner were considered
by the respondent authorities. Moreover, no documents were
provided to the original petitioner, and his signatures were
forcibly obtained on several records, which were later used by
the officials to show that the documents had been duly served.
Counsel further submits that the most crucial document in this
regard is Annexure-6, i.e., the petition for revision, wherein all
relevant points were raised. However, none of these points were
considered by the Revisional Authority, particularly the issue
concerning the burn injury of the original petitioner's son, aged
about 4½ years.
8. Learned counsel for the Union of India, on the
other hand, submits that the order of punishment was passed
completely in accordance with law. It is submitted that the
original petitioner became unauthorizedly absent from the
Group Centre with effect from 11.02.2000, without providing
any information or obtaining permission from the competent
authority. Counsel further submits that an FIR was also lodged
at the Police Station, University Campus, B.R.A.B.U.,
Muzaffarpur on 17.02.2000. A representative was sent to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2770 of 2004 dt.21-04-2025
original petitioner's home address, and information was
communicated to him to report for duty immediately. However,
despite the efforts made by the officials, the original petitioner
did not return to his duty immediately. Subsequently, a warrant
of arrest was issued through the Superintendent of Police,
Muzaffarpur, to arrest and produce the original petitioner before
him. However, the said order could not be complied with by the
local police. An Office Memorandum was also sent to the
original petitioner's home address via registered post. An
enquiry officer was appointed. Counsel further submits that the
original petitioner reported at his own for the enquiry on
22.06.2000. He was participated in the enquiry, and was granted
every opportunity to defend himself. The delinquent was served
notice, his representation was received, and after granting every
opportunity, the original petitioner was removed from service by
order dated 19.09.2000. Thereafter, the original petitioner did
not prefer an appeal immediately and later moved before the
Hon'ble High Court in CWJC No. 16048 of 2001 in which vide
order dated 02.01.2002, liberty was granted to the original
petitioner to prefer an appeal. After the final order was passed in
the appeal, the original petitioner filed representation before the
Minister which was entertained as revision. Before disposal of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2770 of 2004 dt.21-04-2025
revision petition, he moved before the High Court in CWJC No.
3948 of 2003. Subsequently, Hon'ble Court vide order dated
22.04.2003 directed that an order be passed on the revision, and
the final order on revision was passed accordingly on
14.07.2003.
9. Counsel for the Union of India further submits
that the case of the original petitioner has been duly considered.
He further submits that the original petitioner is attempting to
claim benefit based on the fact that his son suffered burn injuries
and it is due to this reason he became depressed.
10. In this regard, counsel for the Union of India
specifically submits that the certificate regarding the burn injury
has not been provided, as it has been acknowledged in the
appellate order. The appellate order categorically indicates that
the original petitioner has failed to produce any medical
document in support of the burn injury of his son. Counsel
further submits that the claim regarding the burn injury has been
denied by the Appellate Authority on the grounds already
mentioned. In this background, counsel for the Union of India
submits that the original petitioner has no case at all.
11. In light of the submissions made above, after
hearing the parties and considering the fact that the original
Patna High Court CWJC No.2770 of 2004 dt.21-04-2025
petitioner is a class-IV employee, who has taken the plea that
his son, aged about 4½ years, was burned, on which counsel for
the petitioner has put more emphasis. This Court, upon perusal
of the findings of the Appellate Authority, particularly as
mentioned in paragraph 2 of the appellate order, which is as
follows:-
The averment made in this para
is not correct. As per available records and
information received from GC, CRPF,
Muzaffarpur, delinquent neither applied for
any leave nor he informed about
ailment/burnt injuries of his son at any level.
Further, no medical documents were
produced by him till date in support of burn
injuries sustained to his son. As such, it is
very clear that to cover up his willful/un-
authorised absence and get mercy of the
competent authority, appellant has made
such a fabricated story at his own.
12. After reading the said findings, it transpires to
this Court that the original petitioner has not provided any
medical document in support of the burn injury to his son before
the appeal. The two medical certificates submitted were related
to his mother's treatment, and a separate certificate was provided
by a medical practitioner regarding his own illness. It further
transpires from the report of the medical practitioner that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2770 of 2004 dt.21-04-2025
original petitioner was in depression since 10.02.2000.
However, according to both the petitioner's and the Union of
India's submissions, the original petitioner was on duty on
10.02.2000, only with effect from 11.02.2000, he became absent
from his duty and therefore, the doctor who has provided the
certificate that the original petitioner was mentally ill /
depressed with effect from 10.02.2000, may not be accepted,
and it appears not to be a genuine document.
13. Moreover, submissions of the learned counsel
for the petitioners that the points taken in the Revision petition
has not been taken into consideration, is also not acceptable as
from the revisional order which has been attached in the
counter-affidavit as Annexure(C). From Annexure (C), it
transpires that the discussion and comment have been made by
the Revisional Authority paragraph wise. Counsel further
submits that the original petitioner has attached his medical
certificate through revision petition.
14. In this regard, this Court is of the firm view that
the documents which ought to have been provided in the
disciplinary proceeding, have neither been provided in the
disciplinary proceeding nor in appellate proceeding. Therefore,
new documents cannot be produced directly at the revisional
Patna High Court CWJC No.2770 of 2004 dt.21-04-2025
level. As a result, if the Revisional Authority has not accepted
those documents at the revisional level directly, has taken a
correct decision.
15. In light of the submissions, this Court has
reached on the finding that all points raised by the original
petitioner have been duly considered by the officials, and a
reasoned order has been passed. Therefore, this Court is not
inclined to interfere in this writ petition. Accordingly, the
present writ petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 28.04.2025
Transmission Date NA
