Telangana High Court

B. Yadagiri S/O. B. Rajaiah. vs Union Of India Rep. By Its ... on 8 September, 2023

Bench: Pulla Karthik

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                WRIT PETITION No.41297 of 2014
ORDER:

Seeking to call for the records pertaining to Order No.R.XIII-

26/2012-Adm-III, dated 08.01.2013, passed by respondent No.2

and No.R.XIII-01/2013-EC-III, dated 08.08.2012 passed by

respondent No.4 and Office Order No.P-8.5/2007/90-Adm,

dt.04.04.2008 passed by the respondent No.5 and quash the same

as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice,

the present Writ Petition is filed.

2) The case of the petitioner is that he joined in the Central

Reserve Police Force in the year 2001 and since then discharging

his duties without any complaint, whatsoever, till the order of

dismissal. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was

granted leave from 12.03.2007 to 10.05.2007 by considering his

illness. Thereafter, he was supposed to report for duties on

11.05.2007, but he could not report due to sickness. Initially, he

took treatment at his native place. As he was advised to take

further treatment at Hyderabad, he went to Hyderabad for further

treatment. Immediately, he sent a letter for extension of leave for

further 20 days along with a medical certificate to the respondents.

Thereafter, the doctors on certain tests came to the conclusion that

the petitioner was suffering with typhoid, for which, he undergone PK, J 2 WP_41297_2014

treatment. Further, due to stress also, his condition was not good.

Thereafter, when he went to his native place, his father suffered

chest pain. Thus, due to stress, ill-health and family problems, he

could not report to duty immediately after the expiry of the leave

period. It is the further case of the petitioner that immediately, on

recovery, he has reported at the office of the fourth respondent

along with medical certificate and requested for reinstatement

along with representation. The fourth respondent, on receipt of the

same, informed the petitioner that he was dismissed from service,

against which, the petitioner filed appeal, review and revision,

which went in vain. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by

way of this writ petition.

3) Heard Sri K. Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner, and Sri Krupa Sagar, learned counsel representing Sri

Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for

the respondents.

4) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that

respondent No.5 has failed to follow the procedure before declaring

the petitioner as 'Over Stay Leave' as contemplated under CRPF

Act, 1949, and Rules thereunder and no order of dismissal was

communicated to the petitioner till he filed an appeal before the

fourth respondent. It is further contended that the respondents PK, J 3 WP_41297_2014

ought to have seen that the petitioner has reported before

respondent No.5 stating that he was suffering from typhoid fever,

as such, sought for extension of leave for about 20 days and

thereafter he undergone treatment under Civil Assistant Surgeon,

Area Hospital, for his illness due to stress and copies of the said

medical records were also furnished to the appellate as well as

revisional authority. Without considering the same, the authorities

have rejected the appeal as well as the revision filed by the

petitioner. It is further contended that the respondent authorities

conducted enquiry without serving a copy of charge sheet and

without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the

reasons. Further, an ex parte enquiry was conducted by giving a

go-by to the Rules. Therefore, he prayed to allow the writ petition.

5) Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents

has contended that the petitioner was enlisted in CRPF on

05.09.2001 and posted at fifth respondent Battalion.

Subsequently, Earned Leave for sixty days w.e.f.12.03.2007 to

10.05.2007 was granted to him and after availing the said leave, he

was supposed to report to duty on 11.05.2007, but he failed to do

so and over-stayed the leave w.e.f.11.05.2007 without any

permission or sanction from competent authority. It is further

contended that he was directed to report to the duty vide letters

dated 14.05.2007, 30.05.2007, 09.07.2007 by the 5th respondent PK, J 4 WP_41297_2014

and as the petitioner did not turn up duty, based on the complaint

of Office of the 5th respondent, a warrant of arrest was issued to

the Superintendent of Police, Medak District, vide CJM order No.W-

II-03/07-EC-2 dated 11.07.2007 to apprehend the petitioner and

produce before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, but he was neither

apprehended nor he reported for duty. Hence, under Rule 31 (c) of

CRPF Rules 1955, the petitioner was declared as 'deserter' from

Force w.e.f.11.05.2007. Subsequently, a departmental enquiry

was ordered vide Memorandum No.P-VIII-5/2007-90-EC-II dated

12.10.2007 against the petitioner. It is further contended that an

enquiry was called upon through Office Memorandum dated

08.11.2007, but the petitioner has neither appeared before the

Enquiry Officer nor submitted any reply in the departmental

enquiry and therefore the Enquiry Officer submitted an ex parte

enquiry report on 14.01.2008 stating that the charges were held to

be proved. Based on the said enquiry report, the petitioner was

dismissed from service w.e.f.04.04.2008 vide order passed by

5th respondent on 04.04.2008. Learned counsel has contended

that the petitioner was given ample opportunity at every stage of

enquiry to defend his case. But, the petitioner failed to appear

before the authorities and all the correspondence letters sent to the

petitioner were returned by the postal authorities, undelivered. The

petitioner neither joined the duties nor replied to the letters sent to PK, J 5 WP_41297_2014

him. Hence, the respondents are justified in passing the dismissal

order. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed to dismiss the writ

petition. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India 1 in

support of his contentions.

6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by both

the counsel.

7) A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner was

granted leave from 12.03.2007 to 10.05.2007 but even after expiry

of the said period, he did not report to duty. Thus, he has over

stayed beyond the leave period w.e.f.11.05.2007 without any

permission/sanction of leave by the competent authority. Further,

the petitioner was directed to report to duty forthwith vide letters

dated 14.05.2007, 30.05.2007, 09.07.2007. As he did not turn up

for duty, a warrant of arrest was also issued to the Superintendent

of Police, Medak District, vide CJM order No.W-II-03/07-EC-2

dated 11.07.2007 for his apprehension. Consequently, he was

declared as 'deserter' from the date of his unauthorized absence

from the duty vide order of the 5th respondent dated 29.09.2007.

Subsequently, the Memorandum of Charge was sent to his address

through Registered Post vide letter No.P.VIII.05/2007-90-EC-I,

dated 12.10.2007 by giving him ten days time for reply, if any. As

2023 INSC 656 PK, J 6 WP_41297_2014

the petitioner did not respond to the charge memo, an enquiry

officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry vide order dated

08.11.2007. Due to non-receipt of any communication from the

petitioner, the Enquiry Officer conducted the departmental enquiry

ex parte, as per Rule 14 (2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The record

further discloses that the enquiry was conducted in accordance

with the Rules and following the principles of natural justice. At

every stage of enquiry, the petitioner was given ample opportunity

to defend his case, but he failed to avail the same. Thus, it was

established that the charges levelled against the petitioner were

proved. Accordingly, the petitioner was awarded the punishment

of dismissal from service vide order dated 04.04.2008. Further,

the departmental enquiry proceedings reveal that the petitioner

was remained dormant approximately for one year from the date of

his over stayal till finalization of the departmental enquiry

proceedings i.e. from 11.05.2007 to 04.04.2008. It is further

revealed that the petitioner never made any correspondence or

reported back in his Unit on his own during nearly four years of

his absence period before filing the appeal dated 02.03.2012.

8) In this context, it is appropriate to refer to the observations

made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ex Sepoy Madan

Prasad's case (referred supra) wherein at para 10, it has been

held as under:

PK, J 7 WP_41297_2014

"Such gross indiscipline on the part of the appellant who was a member of the Armed Forces could not be countenanced. He remained out of line far too often for seeking condonation of his absence of leave, this time, for a prolonged period of 108 days which if accepted, would have sent a wrong signal to others in service. One must be mindful of the fact that discipline is the implicit hallmark of the Armed Forces and a non-negotiable condition of service."

9) In the case on hand, the over stayal of leave period is for

more than four years. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the prolonged period of over stayal by

the petitioner cannot be countenanced.

10) In view of the laches on the part of the petitioner, detailed

above, and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad's case (referred supra), this Court does

not find any error in the impugned orders warranting interference

of this Court.

11) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

12) Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

No costs.