Rajasthan High Court
No. 085070245 Constable / Tailor ... vs The Union Of India (2024:Rj-Jp:2736) on 17 January, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:2736]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7104/2023
No. 085070245 Constable / Tailor Kunwarpal Singh S/o Shri
Lakhan Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o P.no. 79, Sms Green
Valley-B, Near Sector 151, Shipra Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union Of India, Through Secretary To The
Government, Ministry Of Defence, Government Of India,
New Delhi- 110011
2. Inspector General Of Police, West-North Sector, Central
Reserve Police Force, Chandigarh
3. Dy. Inspector General Of Police, Range Central Reserve
Police Force, Sonipat, Haryan
4. Commandant, 75Th Battalion, Central Reserve Police
Force C/o 56 Apo
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naveen Dhuvan for
Mr. Surendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohit Balwada
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
17/01/2024
1. By way of present petition, challenge is made to the
impugned order of dismissal from service dated 13.10.2015 issued
by the Disciplinary Authority as well as order dated 18.04.2016
issued by the Appellate Authority.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was unable to join the service subsequent to his transfer on
account of his ill health. However, disregarding the same, the
petitioner was removed from service.
[2024:RJ-JP:2736] (2 of 4) [CW-7104/2023]
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that
services of the petitioner were terminated as he failed to report
for duty after his transfer. It is further submitted that the
disciplinary proceedings were conducted following due process of
law. Furthermore, both the authorities below have given
concurrent finding of facts against the petitioner, after duly
considering the purported illness which prevented the petitioner
from joining duties.
4. Heard and considered.
5. The transfer order was passed on 06.12.2014 and the
petitioner was supposed to join duties at the transferred place on
17.12.2014. It is undisputed that the petitioner remained absent
from 17.12.2014 to 28.09.2015, without permission. Therefore,
this absence was unauthorized absence. Accordingly, a charge-
sheet containing two charges was issued to the petitioner in June
of 2015. The only question which is to be determined by this Court
is whether the absence was willful or not and what relief, if any, is
to be granted to the petitioner.
6. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was serving in
uniformed posting, where discipline is of utmost importance. It is
well settled that members of uniformed forces cannot absent
themselves on frivolous pleas, having regard to the nature of
duties enjoined on these forces. A member of uniformed force who
overstays his leave by a few days must be able to give a
satisfactory explanation. In the present case, the only reason not
joining the service is attributed to the petitioner suffering from
some sort of prolonged jaundice. However, the same is not
supported by any credible evidence. The petitioner has merely
[2024:RJ-JP:2736] (3 of 4) [CW-7104/2023]
relied on one vague certificate issued by a private clinic saying
that petitioner was advised treatment from 15.02.2014 to
28.09.2015. There is a specific finding by the appellate authority
that the petitioner failed to provide any medical document other
than the vague certificate.
7. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary
inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities
discharged by constitutional courts Under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is well circumscribed by limits of correcting
errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or
violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to
adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority. The
power of judicial review is an evaluation of the decision-making
process and not of the merits of the decision itself. In disciplinary
proceedings, High Court is not and cannot act as second court of
first appeal. No inquiry in facts is to be done in exercise of powers
under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. Conclusion of fact,
which are based upon evaluation and appreciation of evidence,
when meticulously reached by authorities, should not be ordinarily
interfered. Reliance in this regard is placed on Hon'ble Supreme
Court judgments of Union of India(UOI) Vs. P. Gunasekaran
reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, Union of India & Ors. Vs.
Datta Linga Toshatwad reported in (2005) 13 SCC 709, Maan
Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2003) 3 SCC
464, Regional Manager, UCO Bankand Ors. Vs. Krishna
Kumar Bhardwaj reported in (2022) 3 SCALE 616 and Central
Industrial Security Forces & Ors. Vs. Abrar Ali reported in
(2017) 4 SCC 507.
[2024:RJ-JP:2736] (4 of 4) [CW-7104/2023]
8. In the present case, this Court is of the opinion that since
the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of demonstrating that
there were extraordinary circumstances which prevented him from
joining duties, the unauthorized absence will have to be treated as
willful absence and accordingly, the punishment order was also
proportional to the proven misconduct, especially considering the
nature of services.
9. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merits, is
dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
GARIMA /319
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
