SHAIK NAWAB Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the orders of the third respondent dated 03.02.1998 and of the second respondent dated 19.06.1998, in and by which the petitioner was removed from service, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate him in service with back-wages, continuity of service and all attendant benefits.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he joined the services of the Central Industrial Security Force (in short "CISF") on 13.01.1982 as Constable. Subsequently, he was promoted as Lance Naik. From 13.01.1982 he had been given several awards in recognition of his meritorious service. In October, 1992, he was posted at Vishakapattinam, where he continued in service till November, 1995, when he was posted at Neyveli Lignite Corporation at Neyveli. He lost his brother in the month of August, 1996. Petitioner's wife being an illiterate was unable to manage the family. Considering his family circumstances, he made a representation to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (CISF) for posting him at Vishakapattinam. He sent several reminders. Due to family circumstances, he was constrained to avail 15 days casual leave in the month of January, 1997. Again, he availed earned leave in the month of May/June, 1997. During July, 1997 also the petitioner applied for leave on 2 occasions, but the same was refused. Meanwhile, he received a telegram stating that his wife was in a very serious condition and so, he rushed to Vishakapattinam. Within few days thereafter, he slipped in the bath-room, as a result of which he suffered injury and severe pain in the back and wrist and he suffering from "Sciatica" due to which he was bed-ridden. While he was bed ridden, he was issued with a charge memo dated 20.09.1997, charging him with gross remiss indiscipline and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Armed Forces. It is also stated in the charge memo that he deserted duty on 16.07.1997. He submitted his explanation on 02.10.1997. Ignoring his explanation, the second respondent chose to conduct an enquiry in respect of the said charge. Due to illness he was not able to attend the enquiry and he was temporarily shifted to his father-in-law's house at Malakapuram. Thereafter, he came to know that an exparte enquiry was conducted and charge against him was held proved and penalty of removal from service with immediate effect was imposed on him by the third respondent in his proceedings dated 03.02.1998. On 04.03.1998, he preferred an appeal to the second respondent, which was also dismissed on 19.06.1998. In such circumstances, having no other remedy, the petitioner filed the present writ petition questioning both the orders.

(3.) THE Disciplinary Authority agreed with the report of the Enquiry Officer, and concluded that the charged official wilfully left the Unit lines on 16.07.1997, without any valid leave/permission, and even after repeated chances he failed to report back at his Unit for duty. He also concluded that the petitioner did not give any valid reason for his prolonged unauthorised absence from duty. After taking note of the gravity of proven delinquency and accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority, imposed the penalty of removal from service with immediate effect. As said earlier, the said order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.