GOLAK CHANDRA SWAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of dismissal dated 25.2.2010 under Annexure-9 passed by the Commandant-III BN, CRPF after an ex parte enquiry and the order dated 22.7.2010 under Annexure-11 passed by the appellate authority as well as the order dated 28.7.2011 under Annexure-14 passed by the revisional authority confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has joined the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on 10.8.1994. During his service period he served the Force in many capacities without demur and to the utmost satisfaction of the superior authorities as a disciplined, obedient and dutiful member of the Force. He has also maintained high degree of discipline, etiquette and good behavior and at no point of time the superior authorities have made any adverse remark against the petitioner. While continuing as such he has applied for leave to attend his ailing mother as well as for other work. The leave was approved and sanctioned from 06.1.2009 to 06.3.2009. During the leave period, his old knee joint injury resurfaced and the Doctor advised the petitioner to undergo a surgery, which fact was intimated to his superior authority with a prayer to extend the leave period. Though repeated applications were made by the petitioner, the authorities have not considered the same and the Commandant-III BN, CRPF opposite party no.4 passed an order on 06.10.2009 declaring the petitioner as 'Deserter' from the Force w.e.f. 07.3.2009 F.N i.e. from the date of his unauthorized absence. While continuing as such, the petitioner has received Memorandum of Article of Charges under Annexure-3 on 15.10.2009 to file his reply within fifteen days. Thereafter, he has received a letter dated 19.10.2009 under Annexure-4 to report the Unit immediately. By office order dated 07.11.2009 under Annexure-5 the petitioner was intimated that a Departmental Enquiry under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955 has been initiated against him and Sri A.D.Ganapathy was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. Considering the Enquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of dismissal from service on 25.2.2010 under Annexure-9 which reveals that they have intentionally penalized the petitioner in the Departmental Proceeding even though the overstay on leave was due to events beyond his control. The petitioner filed his show cause reply to the Article of Charges levelled against him explaining that after expiry of the leave period on 06.3.2009 he had applied for extension of leave on medical ground but the authorities without considering the same passed an ex parte order of dismissal from service on 25.2.2010 under Annexure-9. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal on 30.3.2010 under Annexure-10 against the order of dismissal from service before the appellate authority opposite party no.4. However, the appeal was rejected on 22.7.2010 under Annexure-10 being devoid of merit. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision under Annexure- 12 before opposite party no.3 on 20.8.2010. During pendency of the revision, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.19383 of 2011. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 27.7.2011 directing the Revisional Authority to dispose of the revision within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. The Revisional Authority dismissed the revision vide order dated 28.7.2011 under Annexure-14. Hence the Writ Petition.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties inter alia taking the stand that the petitioner was granted 60 days Earned Leave w.e.f. 06.1.2009 to 06.3.2009. On expiry of the sanctioned leave, he was required to report back to duty on 06.3.2009 but he did not report on due date and overstayed from 07.3.2009 without any permission or sanction of competent authority, which is prejudicial to the good on order and discipline of the Force and is punishable under Section 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955. It is stated that the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed by Disciplinary Authority after considering all pros and cons of the case which fully commensurate with the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner, hence, the impugned orders need not be interfered with.