CHANDRAMA BHUSAN SARANGI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner challenges the order of punishment of removal from service and the confirming appellate and revisional orders under Annexure-8, 10 & 12 respectively.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the petitioner is that initially in the year 1992 he was appointed as a Constable in the C.I.S.F. Unit, IPCL, Baroda in the State of Gujarat. In 1997 he was transferred to the CISF Unit, BPCL, Mumbai. On 15.5.1999 he was transferred from Mumbai to CISF Unit, KhSTPP, Kahalgaon, Bihar and was relieved on that day with direction to join at C.I.S.F. Unit, Kahalgaon on 28.5.1999 after availing joining time. The petitioner having not joined at his new place of posting, the Dy. Commandant, C.I.S.F., KhSTPP, Kahalgaon vide its letters dated 19.7.1999 and 30.08.1999 reported about non-joining of the petitioner. Thereafter three call up notices dated 2.8.1999, 7.9.1999 and 08.09.1999 were sent to the petitioner by registered post to his residential address with direction to report to duty at Kahalgaon failing which disciplinary action would be taken against him. The first two call up notices were returned to the office undelivered by the postal authorities with remarks "long absent". The petitioner neither reported for duty nor sent any communication regarding his whereabouts nor responded to the call up notice dated 08.09.1999. Therefore, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him under Rule 34 of the C.I.S.F. Rules,1969 (now amended Rule 36 of C.I.S.F. Rules,2001) and Memorandum of charges dated 16.10.1999 as per Annexure-1 was served on him. The petitioner submitted his reply (Annexure-2) to the charge stating that due to his illness and hospitalization he could not report at his new place of posting. The Inquiry Officer enquired into the charge and found the petitioner guilty of the same and submitted his report dated 10.7.2001 (Annexure-4) to the disciplinary authority. Before the disciplinary authority, the petitioner submitted a further show cause stating that due to self illness and for Super Cyclone in which his paternal house was washed away he could not report for duty. On consideration of the enquiry report, the materials on record along with the show cause filed by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority (opposite party no.4) passed order on 3.10.2001 vide Annexure-8 imposing the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner, thereafter filed appeal before opposite party no.3 challenging the order of punishment, but the said appeal was dismissed by order 1.5.2002 vide Annexure-10. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision before opposite party no.2 which also met with the same fate. The order of dismissal of revision dated 02.06.2003 has been filed as Annexure-12. It is also pleaded and contended that the Inquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority acted whimsically without properly considering the evidence on record and without following the procedure and formality. It is also stated that the punishment of removal from service is quite harsh and shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct for which the petitioner was charged.

(3.) WITH regard to proportionality of punishment for misconduct, the Apex Court in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited (supra) has held as follows :