SATYAM MAHAPATRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged removal from his service and claimed reinstatement with all consequential benefits and filed the present writ petition claiming the following reliefs:-

(2.) The petitioner was a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and was posted at 233 Battalion. He was sent for his own treatment at 65 Btn. CRPF, Raipur on 12/7/2017, but he did not report there and remained absent from duty without permission of the competent authority. Due to his unauthorized absence from duty, a complaint was lodged on 31/8/2017. Based on the complaint, a warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner on 5/9/2017 by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Commandant 223 Btn. CRPF, Kamapedaguda, Dornapal, Sukma. Considering his unauthorized absence under sub-rule 31(C) of CRPF Rules, 1955, the petitioner was declared a deserter vide order dtd. 25/1/2018. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was initiated on 16/2/2018 as provided under Sec. 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. After unauthorized absent from duty for 223 days, the petitioner appeared on 20/2/2018 (AN), and the warrant of arrest issued against him was cancelled by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 21/2/2018. In the departmental enquiry, the charges of Article-I and II were found proved; however, the charge of Article-III was found not proved. Thereafter, the order of punishment of removal from service was issued on 20/6/2018. The order of removal from service was challenged by the petitioner by filing the departmental appeal, which was rejected on 04/12/2020 (Annexure P/2), and the revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the order dtd. 18/6/2021, hence this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, during the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was not provided a proper opportunity to defend his case and to cross-examine the witnesses. Even the documents have not been provided to the petitioner. Mere absence from duty is not sufficient to pass the major penalty of removal from service. The absence from duty was not willful and was under compelling circumstances, and it cannot be considered a willful or deliberate absence from duty, and the petitioner cannot be penalised for the same. He would also submit that the petitioner has made his application for the supply of the documents under the RTI Act, but the same has also been rejected by saying that the copies of the documents have already been supplied to the petitioner and the same cannot again be supplied. He would further submit that there is a procedure prescribed for conducting the departmental enquiry under the CRPF Rules, but the same has not been followed. The departmental appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner have been decided mechanically without considering the grievance of the petitioner; therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside/quashed and the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.