Telangana High Court
Sujatha Singh vs Union Of India on 3 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.No. 7675 of 2021
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of
mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned final
order No.V-15014/Disc/Maj-03/SS/(HPCL-V)/GHH/2020-
1562, dated 25.03.2020 imposing the major penalty of removal
from service on the ground of unauthorized absence without
giving reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the order dated
25.08.2020 rejecting the appeal petition of the petitioner, as
illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently to set aside
the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner
into service as Constable with all consequential benefits and to
pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ
petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in
the year 2007 and she was posted in various units of CISF and
rendered more than twelve years of service in the department.
While working as such, the petitioner was served with a charge
memo on 16.10.2009 framing the following two charges against
her: (i) the petitioner failed to join duty on 14.03.2019 after Over
TMD,J
Staying Leave (OSL) for 173 days from 14.03.2018 to
02.09.2018 and exhibited gross misconduct; and (ii) the
petitioner was awarded four penalties in the past, out of which
two major penalties were for OSL and one minor penalty was for
unauthorized absence.
3. An addendum to charge was also issued for
deciding the quantum of penalty, if current charges are found to
be proved.
4. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on
31.10.2019 denying the charges by duly enclosing the relevant
supporting documents and requested to drop further action
against her. The petitioner has explained that her absence was
on account of compelling circumstances to take care of her
ailing son and that she repeatedly sent requests for sanctioning
of leave, which remained pending with concerned authorities
and therefore, it does not amount to Over Staying of Leave. It is
alleged that without considering the explanation of the
petitioner, the respondent authorities appointed Presenting
Officer and the Enquiry Officer to inquire into the charges
framed against the petitioner under Rule 36 of CISF Rules, 2001
vide orders dated 16.10.2009. It is submitted that the Enquiry
TMD,J
Officer, without following the prescribed Rules and the
procedure thereunder, conducted an enquiry and submitted his
report on 23.12.2019 holding the charges as proved against the
petitioner. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority directed the
petitioner to submit her explanation and the petitioner
submitted her explanation on 26.02.2020 by reiterating her
earlier stand. But the disciplinary authority has agreed with the
findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the major penalty of
removal from service on the ground of unauthorized absence. It
is submitted that the petitioner was not given reasonable
opportunity of hearing since there was a countrywide lockdown
due to Covid-19 pandemic with effect from 25.03.2020 and the
removal order was received by her on 05.05.2020. It is
submitted that the punishment order was highly illegal,
arbitrary, unconstitutional and also highly harsh and
disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner has, thereafter preferred an appeal to the
appellate authority through proper channel on 20.05.2020
reiterating her earlier stand and also that out of 173 days
treated as OSL, 100 days were granted as leave by the higher
TMD,J
authorities and for the remaining days, the petitioner had
requested the authorities to extend the leave and also placed
several applications explaining the reasons for her leave and
some of them are pending consideration with the authorities
and the petitioner was under the bonafide impression that the
authorities will sanction the leave by considering her personal
problems and the family conditions. It is submitted that the
appellate authority, however, rejected her appeal vide orders
dated 25.08.2020 without giving any findings on the
submissions of the petitioner and the merits of the grounds
raised in the appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
U.P. and Others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha 1 and also in the case
of Krushnakant B.Parmar Vs. Union of India and Another 2.
In view of the above judgments, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the order of removal and the appellate
order confirming the said order of removal have to be set aside.
1 (2010) 2 SCC 772
2 (2012) 3 SCC 178
TMD,J
7. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing
for the respondents, have filed a detailed counter affidavit of the
respondents and submitted that due opportunity of hearing was
given to the petitioner and all the prescribed procedure has
been followed by the respondents and therefore, there is no
cause for interference in this matter. The respondents have
further taken a preliminary objection about the maintainability
of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has not yet
availed the departmental remedy in the form of submitting a
revision petition before the revisional authority.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other
hand, submitted that the revision is not a statutory remedy and
the petitioner has availed the statutory remedy of appeal, since
the appeal of the petitioner was rejected, he filed the present
writ petition.
9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the
material on record, this Court finds that the main charge
against the petitioner was that she has Over Stayed her Leave
for 173 days from 14.03.2018 to 02.09.2018 and the second
charge is that if the first charge is proved and as she has been
punished on the earlier occasions for the very same reasons, the
TMD,J
same would be considered for awarding the quantum of
punishment. It is noticed that the petitioner has submitted her
explanation to the charge memo stating that she was under the
bonafide impression that once she submitted her application to
her immediate superiors, that would be the final and that the
leave would be granted and had sought pardon for the same.
However, the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the
said explanation and has appointed an Enquiry Officer as well
as a Presenting Officer. Having gone through the enquiry report,
this Court finds that sufficient opportunity was given to the
petitioner for participating in the enquiry and the petitioner had
also submitted her defence statement. The petitioner has never
raised any objection with regard to the procedure or conduct of
enquiry. Except for the merits of the case, the petitioner has not
been able to bring out any irregularity or illegality in the
conduct of enquiry. Even the order of appellate authority is a
speaking order. The appellate authority has considered each of
the grounds raised by the petitioner and has dealt with the
same in detail. In such circumstances, this Court, under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with the order
of punishment.
TMD,J
10. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts. In the case of
Krushnakant B.Parmar (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the absence from duty should be willful and
deliberate to invite the harsh punishment of removal from
service. The Jharkhand High Court in the case of Namita Singh
Vs. CISF and Others, has also considered the said judgment
only to consider the quantum of punishment as to whether it
was appropriate or proportionate to the alleged misconduct. In
the case before this Court, both the disciplinary authority as
well as the appellate authority have brought out the clear
instances where the petitioner has failed to correct herself in
spite of several opportunities granted earlier and in spite of
penalties being imposed on her. Therefore, there is no case for
consideration even on merits by this Court. However, the
quantum of punishment of removal from service definitely
appears to be excessive for the alleged misconduct of Over
Staying of Leave. Therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to
permit the petitioner to submit a revision petition before the
revisional authority, who shall consider the revision petition and
also the quantum of punishment to be imposed on the
TMD,J
petitioner, without being influenced by any of the above
observations of this Court.
11. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed
of. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 03.06.2024
bak
