THONGSI Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, while working as Constable in 52 Bn. CRPF was proceeded against departmentally and having been found guilty of the charge, was removed from service by the disciplinary authority in Annexure-A/2 on 11.6.2002. His appeal against the order of punishment was dismissed by the appellate authority on 26.9.2006 in Annexure-A/4. The revision filed by him against the order of the appellate authority as well as the disciplinary authority was also rejected by the Inspector General of Police, Eastern Sector, CRPF Kolkata in Annexure-A/6. Challenging the above three orders, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined as Constable in 52 Bn. CRPF in the year, 1990. In the year 2001-02 the Bn. was stationed at Smailpur, in the State of Jammu & Kashmir and he was also posted there in the Battalion. During the said period, he took casual leave for 15 days i.e. from 3.9.2001 to 19.9.2001 as his wife was seriously ill. During his stay at home his son also suffered from some ailments and accordingly he sent a telegram for extension of his leave. During that period also, there was factional killing between two tribes and he had to run away with his family members from his village for a safe shelter at Kangpokpi. Since the trouble continued for a long time, he could not join the post for about 6(six) months. After the trouble subsided and his family was settled in the village, he returned and reported for duty on 14.4.2002. Then only he came to know that during his absence a departmental enquiry had been conducted ex parte. After reporting for duty he was handed over with the copy of the enquiry report with instruction to make representation in writing. Thereafter, he was assigned normal duty for a period of two months. Though the petitioner had submitted reply, suddenly the order of punishment was passed on 11.6.2002 removing him from service. Thereafter, his appeal and revision preferred against the punishment were rejected. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had every justification to overstay and had he been given an opportunity to defend himself in the departmental proceeding, he could have proved the justification of his overstay.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents- 1 to 4 wherein it is stated that after initiation of departmental proceeding, the petitioner had been given ample opportunity to appear before the Enquiry Officer to contest the proceeding. He did not choose to do so and accordingly departmental proceeding was completed ex parte. Since the petitioner was found guilty of the charge, the disciplinary authority, considering the fact that CRPF is an disciplined organization and such conduct of the petitioner was not expected of an employee of the organization, decided to remove him from service. The appellate authority as well as revisional authority also agreed with the view of the disciplinary authority and dismissed the appeal and revision respectively.