MD. AKHTAR KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. I. Lalitkumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. C. Komol, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Imphal, who dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 2.4.2004 on the ground that there was no material irregularity or miscarriage of justice in the disciplinary proceedings and the charges have been proved which are serious in nature, which warrant deterrent penalty and that the penalty of dismissal from service inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority was commensurate with the offence committed by the petitioner. Thereafter, being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a revision petition before the revisional authority, namely, the Inspector General of Police, Manipur & Nagaland Sector, CRPF, Langjing, Imphal. The revisional authority also on consideration of the materials held that there has been no irregularity or miscarriage of justice on the part of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority and held that since the charges have been proved and since there was no material or new materials which would justify interference, rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner as devoid of merit vide order dated 31.12.2004.

(3.) On going through the Memorandum of Charges dated 23.5.2003, what is seen is that the only charge against the petitioner is that though he was detailed for quarter guard duty with others on 4.5.2003, he absented willfully from duty and continued to be absent in the Morning Marker on 5.5.2003, thus the charge against the petitioner was of absence on the said two occasions. There is no other charge alleging any other misconduct against the petitioner. Annexure-II merely contains the past records of the petitioner to show that the he is a habitual absentee. As many as 12 incidents are listed in the said Annexure-II. Perusal of the said past record, however, reveals that though the petitioner had been imposed minor punishments on various occasions by way of confinement or forfeiture of pay and allowances, etc. for absence, the period of absence had been regularised.