AMARJIT SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is working as a Head Constable (General Duty) in CISF. He was during the relevant period, posted at CISF Unit, SCCL (SRP Area) in Bellampalli, Andhra Pradesh. He was deputed on temporary duty to New Delhi on 15th July, 2004 for getting the GPF account transferred to RPAO, Chennai. He was directed to report back to CISF, SCCL, Bellampalli, Andhra Pradesh on or before the 5th August, 2004 Instead of doing so, the petitioner continued to stay on in Delhi and reported back for duty only on 4th September, 2004 He was served with a charge-sheet for dereliction of duty and disobedience of lawful orders, a conduct unbecoming of a member of the Armed Force. His explanation was considered and by an order dated 26th October, 2004, a penalty of withholding of one year's increment for a period of one year with post-ponement of future increment was imposed upon him. Aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority who dismissed the same by order dated 31st December, 2004 A revision petition was then taken to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CISF which too failed and was dismissed by order dated 22nd November, 2005. THE Disciplinary Authority as also the Appellate and the Revisional Authorities were of the view that the petitioner had no justification for his continued stay at Delhi beyond 5th August, 2004 without specific authorization from the higher authorities. His explanation was considered and rejected as untenable. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the said orders.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders under challenge. The fact that the petitioner was sent on a temporary duty and was to report back by the 5th August, 2004 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had continued in Delhi and reported back to the Unit only on 4th September, 2004 There is no authorization relied upon or produced by the petitioner for his continuance in Delhi till the 3rd September, 2004 when he left by train to join at his place of post. His continued stay in Delhi despite a direction that he shall report back to his Unit by 5th August, 2004 was, therefore, a clear case of unauthorised absence which proved the charge levelled against him. Punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of one year was in that view a light punishment with which we see no reason to interfere. There is no merit in this petition which fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.