ABRAR ALI Vs. CISF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2000 passed by the Disciplinary Authority thereby directing his dismissal from the Forces with immediate effect. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 01.02.2001 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting his appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority and order dated 31.12.2010 passed by the Revisional Authority whereby his revision petition was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner was posted as a Constable in CISF, BCCL Unit, Dhanbad. He proceeded on a 2 days' casual leave from 12.08.1999 to 13.08.1999 to attend to his domestic problem, and his 2 days' casual leave was duly sanctioned by the sanctioning authority. The petitioner was to join back on duty on 16.08.1999 as 14.08.1999 was a holiday because of it being a second Saturday and the next being Independence day, it was thus a national holiday. As per the petitioner, he could not join back on duty as he fell ill after reaching the place of his service at Dhanbad where he remained under the treatment of Dr. M. Singh from 15.08.1999 to 19.08.1999 and he was declared fit by the doctor on 20.08.1999, and he thereafter surrendered before the concerned court on 20.08.1999 because of the registration of a case against him under Section 363/366A IPC vide FIR No.260/1999 dated 13.08.1999 at Police Station Katras. The petitioner remained in Jail for a considerable period of time and was released on bail on 31.05.2000. In the meanwhile, respondent No.4 issued a chargesheet against the petitioner on 08.10.1999 and Articles of Charge were framed against him which are as under:

(3.) On the basis of material on record, which included the statements of the prosecution witnesses, statement of accused in his defence, written representation made by the petitioner against the inquiry report and other documents produced on record, the Disciplinary Authority found the petitioner guilty of charges framed against him under Articles-I, II and III. As regards Article-II, the petitioner was held guilty on the basis of his involvement in a criminal case. Consequently, he was dismissed from service from his post of Constable due to his proven misconduct during the course of the said inquiry. Although the Appellate Authority concurred with the Disciplinary Authority apropos the Article of Charges I and III he disagreed with the Article of Charge II. The Appellate Authority in its order dated 01.02.2001 candidly observed that the Article of Charge II had not been proved against the petitioner due to lack of sufficient evidence and the Article of Charge I and III were proved against the petitioner beyond doubt. The Appellate Authority also observed that the appellant was sanctioned 2 days' casual leave from 12.08.1999 to 14.08.1999 with permission to avail Second Saturday and was directed to report to the Unit on expiry of the said leave, i.e., on 15.08.1999 (FN) but he had reported to Unit Line at 1730 hours on 15.08.1999. The Appellate Authority also observed that the petitioner was specifically asked to stay in the barracks due to administrative reasons. However, in violation of this order he left the Unit Line unauthorisedly and continued to remain absent without any permission or information till his surrender in Court on 20.08.1999. The Appellate Authority also referred to his previous misconduct for which he had already undergone two major punishments and one minor punishment on separate occasions. The Appellate Authority also held that even after holding that Article of Charge II was not proved against him, the punishment of his removal from service was proportionate to the gravity of his proven misconduct in terms of Articles of Charge I and III. The Revisional Authority, vide order dated 13.12.2010 dismissed the petitioner's revision petition being devoid of merit, and thus upheld the order dated 01.02.2001 passed by the Appellate Authority.