SAJEEV G. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, while working as Barber in the D/143 Bn. of the Central Reserve Police Force at Manipur, was dismissed from service vide Ext P7 order dated 30.12.2009. The allegation against the petitioner was that, while the petitioner was undergoing treatment due to his psychiatric problem at R.I.M.S Hospital, Imphal, was referred to the psychiatrist of Composite Hospital, Guwahati for further examination. While so, the petitioner deserted from the Headquarters of 143 Bn. on 4.7.2009 without any permission, intimation or orders of the competent authority. Though, complaint was lodged with the Chief Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction and a warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner on 16.7.2009, the same could not be executed. In the meanwhile, a Court of Inquiry was ordered and after due procedure the petitioner was declared as 'deserter' from the Force with effect from 4.7.2009.

(2.) The fact that he was declared as a deserter was informed to the petitioner under registered letter dated 13.8.2009. Thereafter, a Memorandum of Articles of charges, for the purpose of conducting a Departmental Inquiry, was drawn up and a copy sent to the petitioner on 4.9.2009, with a direction to report for duty immediately and submit his representation if any, against the charges. The petitioner did not respond to the memo of charges either by appearing in person or by submitting an explanation. Hence, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, which fact was also informed to the petitioner under registered letter dated 8.10.2009. As there was no response from the petitioner even thereafter, the enquiry was conducted ex parte. Copies of the recorded statements, in respect of each prosecution witness, was sent to the residential address of the petitioner, with direction to produce written statement of defence or documents, if any. There being no reply from the petitioner, the inquiry was completed and report submitted finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner had been proved. A copy of the Inquiry report was also sent to the petitioner on 16.11.2009, with direction to submit representation or reply, if any, within 15 days. Thus, after complying with all requisite formalities, the disciplinary authority accepted the findings in the inquiry report and came to the conclusion that the willful absence for the petitioner from duty is gross misconduct and highly prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Force. Based on the said conclusion, Ext P7 order was issued imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner, by exercising the power under Section 11 (1) of the C.R.P.F.Act read with Rule 27 of the C.R.P.F.Rules.

(3.) The petitioner had in the meanwhile, submitted a representation before the third respondent, incriminating certain officials of his Unit and requested for extension of leave to attend his mother during her treatment. The petitioner's representation was rejected by Ext P9 order after elaborate consideration of the allegations raised by the petitioner against his superior officers and also regarding the genuineness of his claim for extension of leave.