LAWS(GJH)-2007-2-161

RANJITSINH K CHUDASMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On February 13, 2007
Ranjitsinh K Chudasma Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Learned Assistant Solicitor General waives service for the respondent -Authorities.

(2.) AT the outset, it must be stated that learned Counsel Shri C. B. Dastoor for the petitioner has not challenged the impugned order dated 11 -10 -2005 on merits. He has restricted his challenge only to the punishment. According to him, it was a highly disproportionate punishment not commensurate with the guilt established in the Departmental Inquiry. He submitted that the petitioner was in CRPF and posted at a very sensitive area. He was away from his home -town since long and that too at a very long distance. He became habitual to consume liquour. For that, in the past, he was punished for 7 times with some lesser punishment. However, no attempts were made by the Authorities to see to it that he improves upon himself. If little care was taken by the Authorities, he would have not committed misconduct. Shri Dastoor further submitted that if one more opportunity is given to the petitioner, then he will not commit such misconduct, provided he is fully recovered from his bad habit of consuming liquour. He submitted that removal of service is the extreme penalty not only to the delinquent -petitioner but to his entire family also. Considering his otherwise blot less service, one more opportunity may be given.

(3.) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Assistant Solicitor General Shri Raval submitted that if the petitioner makes proper representation to the highest authority i.e. respondent No. 1 - Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, giving assurance in it that he will try to improve upon himself, then his case may be considered sympathetically and the Authority may try to covert the maximum penalty of removal of service into any lesser punishment. However, he submitted that the petitioner shall not be given any back -wages if at all he is taken back in service with some other punishment. Shri Dastoor frankly conceded that the petitioner will not be entitled for any back -wages during the period for which he remained out of job.