SUSHANTA KUMAR GOUDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of removal from service recorded by the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 vide Annexures 1 and 3 respectively. The undisputed facts of the case is that the petitioner was posted as CT/Bug attached to the Group Centre of the Central Reserve Police Force, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as "C.R.P.F."). The petitioner was transferred from the CRPF Group Centre, Bhubaneswar with a direction to report to 52 Battalion of the CRPF. Though the petitioner was relieved on transfer from the Group Centre CRPF, Bhubaneswar in the afternoon of 12.10.2007, but he did not join his new place of posting soon thereafter. But after a long lapse of 511 days he reported to 52 Battalion of the CRPF in the afternoon of 16.3.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that he could not join 52 Battalion Group Centre CRPF as he being the only male member available in the house was looking after the treatment of his old ailing mother and had requested for leave, but the authorities without considering his genuine prayer for grant of leave initiated disciplinary action and without affording him any opportunity of being heard and without following the principles of natural justice removed him from the service, which amounts to an arbitrary exercise of the powers by his authorities and therefore needs interference by this Court in exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned orders under Annexures-1 and 3 and with a further direction to the opposite parties to readmit him into the service on humanitarian consideration.

(2.) The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their counter-affidavit. It is the case of the opposite parties that the action of the petitioner in not joining at his new place of posting after being relieved from his former post is an act of gross indiscipline and though the petitioner was asked to report to his duties first and thereafter his leave would be considered but the petitioner showed a recalcitrant attitude for which he was declared a "deserter" and necessary departmental action was initiated against him. It is the further stand of the opposite parties that adequate opportunity had been given to the petitioner and all procedures have been followed by sending the memorandum along with Annexures in the home address of the petitioner with regard to holding of the departmental enquiry. In the enquiry when the petitioner was found guilty of gross misconduct, he was removed from service with effect from the afternoon of 15.5.2009 and his appeal as well as the revision have been dismissed by the appellate as well as the revisional authority by considering the materials on record and not with any caprice or malice. Thus, it is the case of the opposite parties that when there were no procedural irregularities in conducting the departmental enquiry and in view of the gravity of the offence, the punishment awarded to the petitioner cannot amount to shockingly disproportionate to the alleged delinquency and it is prayed that the writ petition being devoid of merit should be dismissed.

(3.) We have heard Mr. A.P. Bose, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Asst. Solicitor General appearing for the opposite parties. Mr. Bose, learned Counsel for the petitioner very strenuously contended that the petitioner is a young person and has long years to serve for the cause of nation and when he was forced to remain on leave because of the illness of his mother, the authorities should have taken a compassionate view and could have imposed minor penalty within the meaning of section- 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. This argument of Mr. Bose was seriously countenanced by the learned Asst. Solicitor General on the ground that the tendency of not reporting at the new place of posting especially in a Para Military Organisation should not be viewed leniently and the same needs to be curbed with a firm hand and when the petitioner has been removed from service as he did not comply with the order of transfer for a long period i.e. to say 511 days, removal from service is the most appropriate order which the Disciplinary Authorities have imposed and there is no reason to interfere with the same.