RUDRAMANI TRIPATHY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as S.I. (CD.) under 114 BN C.R.P.F. at Bhubaneswar and removed from service in a disciplinary proceeding by order dated 27.8.1996 passed by the D.I.G., (P) C.R.P.F., Special Range, confirmed by the appellate order dated 4.6.1997 passed by the Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. and the revisional order dated 10.3.1999 passed by the Director General of Police, C.R.P.F., has filed this present writ application for quashing the above impugned order under Annexures 5, 7 and 9 and for a direction to the opposite parties to reinstate him in service with usual service benefits with effect from 15.9.1994.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that after returning from UNTAC duty in Combodia as a part of Indian Police Contingent from August, 1992 to October, 1993 the continued to work in his post under 114 BN, C.R.P.F., Bhubaneswar and sometime thereafter he became seriously ill as he was suffering from P.I.D. He was under treatment of the Medical officer, 114 BN, C.R.P.F., Bhubaneswar and also under the Medical Officer, G. C. Hospital, C.R.P.F. Since he did not recover from the above ailment he was referred by the authority to the Orthopaedic Specialist, Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar for further treatment where the disease was diagnosed as P.I.D. The petitioner was advised full medical rest. Thereafter he represented the concerned authority to treat the absence period as medical leave and further to release his salary and other dues (Annexure -3 series). The opposite parties in order to ascertain the factum of illness of the petitioner called for a report from the treating physician, Government Hospital, Unit -6, Bhubaneswar for a second medical opinion. A Medical Board was constituted to examine the petitioner as per the direction of the authorities and the C.D.M.O., Khurda. The petitioner was produced before the Board on 19.11.1994 for re -examination and the Medical Board after examining the petitioner confirmed the fact of illness. Thepetitioner after a prolonged treatment was declared fit by the Medical Officer, Orthopaedic Specialist, Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar on 18.9.1996 and thereafter he was' advised to resume his duties. Even though the petitioner was residing in his quarters inside C.R.P.F. campus, Bhubaneswar and continuing his treatment, his salary was stopped and he was declared as 'deserter'. Coming to know the above facts, the petitioner represented to the authorities on 19.3.1996 requesting them to treat the absence period as Medical/Commuted leave and further requested to recall and/ or correct the order of treating him as a 'deserter'. In spite of all the representations made by the petitioner along with the supporting documents of his illness, a Departmental Proceeding/Enquiry was initiated against him holding the period of his treatment as unauthorized absent from duties. Even though no notice to show cause or charge sheet was served on him and he had not been intimated regarding initiation of a disciplinary proceeding, to his utter surprise he received a letter from the Commandant, 114 BN, CRPF/Enquiring Officer (E.O.), directing him to remain present for cross -examination of witnesses and to prepare his defence within fifteen days. The petitioner after receiving the above letter requested the E.O. to send copies of charge sheet and statement of witnesses and further requested the E.O. to permit him to prepare his defence within a period of one month after the above documents are supplied to him. The opposite parties instead of supplying the documents to the petitioner served a copy of the gist of the report of the E.O. asking for a parawise comment from him. As the petitioner did not have the charge sheet and statement of witnesses, he was not in a position to give his reply. While waiting for receipt of the documents/reply from the Enquiring Officer, he received the order -dated 27.8.1996 of the Disciplinary Authority/D.I.G. (P), C.R.P.F., Special Range removing him from service on a finding that he was not suitable to be retained in the post. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned order of opposite party No.3 imposing punishment of removal from service was passed by the Disciplinary Authority without affording him any reasonable opportunity of hearing, which is against the principle of natural justice, and as such it is not sustainable in the eye of law.

(3.) EVEN though the petitioner preferred a revision before the Director General of Police, CRPF, taking all the above grounds, the revisional authority also without considering the matter in its proper perspective confirmed the order of both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. Hence the petitioner preferred this writ application.