KUKHESWAR SAIKIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Kukheswar Saikia, who was a person subject to the Central Reserve Police Forces Act (hereinafter referred to as "the CRPF Act") has approached this Court seeking issuance of appropriate writ/ s and/or direction/s to the respondents against his removal from service.

(2.) Briefly stated, the petitioner's case runs thus : The petitioner was appointed as a cook by the respondents in the month of July, 1991, and posted to 126 Auxiliary Bn. Mokamghat, Bihar. This 126 Auxiliary Bn. became 133 Bn CRPF with effect from April, 1994, and the petitioner continued to serve as a cook until the date of his removal from service. In the month of December, 1997, on account of his mothers' illness, the petitioner, with due permission, left his place of posting at Mahadeva out post, Manipur, for ten days on casual leave with effect from 19.12.97 to 31.12.97. After availing sanctioned leave, the petitioner reported at T/C (transit camp) Dimapur on 31.12.97, but due to non-availability of convoy, the petitioner stayed at T/C, Dimapur, for two days. During the said period of two days, the petitioner suffered from sever depression and for reasons not known to him, the petitioner left his unit, on 3.1.98 for his native village, but on his arrival there, he was advised by his parents and other well- wishers to go back and join his duty. The petitioner accordingly went to T/C, Dimapur, on the next day, but could not enter into the camp due to unknown fear, which had gripped him, and returned back to his native village at Furkating. The petitioner explained his fear to his family members and he was taken to a Bez (quack) for his treatment, but the petitioner did not improve, whereupon the petitioner went to a doctor and remained under his treatment and, gradually, became fit to resume his duty. In the meantime, petitioner received a letter, dated 10.1.99 issued by the Headquarter, 133 Bn. CRPF, informing the petitioner that since the petitioner had left T/C, Dimapur line, on 3.1.98, without reporting to any one, the petitioner had already been declared as a 'deserter', vide letter dated 17.9.98, and that a departmental enquiry had been ordered against him. By the letter dated 10.1.99 aforementioned, the petitioner was also informed that the sender of the letter, namely, Shri P.K. Sahoo, Assistant Commandant, had been appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the departmental enquiry against the petitioner and the petitioner had been asked to report for the enquiry at Headquarter 133 Bn, CRPF, Rajendra Nagar, Patna, within 15 days. The petitioner, then, rushed to his Unit and on his reporting for duty on 29.1.99, the petitioner was put in quarter guard for 24 hours and thereafter, he was allowed to work as a cook. In course of time, a departmental enquiry was held and the petitioner was informed about the findings of the enquiry by a letter dated 10.4.00. By the letter, dated 10.4.99, aforementioned, the petitioner was also informed that if he wished to make any representation or submission, he may do so, in writing before the Disciplinary Authority concerned. The petitioner accordingly filed a representation. The petitioner was, however, served with an order contained in letter No. P.VIII-12/98- 133-EC-II, dated 30.4.99, whereby the petitioner was informed that he stood removed from service.

(3.) Resisting the reliefs sought by the petitioner, respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition, the case of the respondents being briefly stated thus : After availing 10 days' of casual leave with effect from 19.12.97 to 31.12.97, the petitioner reported at the Transit Camp at Dimapur on 31.12.97, but after staying there for two days, he deserted T.C. Dimapur line, in the forenoon of 3.1.98, without obtaining prior permission from the authority concerned and without intimation to any one. A Court of Enquiry (in short COI) was, therefore, held under Rule 31 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "CRPF Rules"). As per finding of the COI, the petitioner was declared a deserter from the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as "the force") with effect from 3.1.98 and a warrant of arrest was accordingly issued against him on 5.2.98, but the petitioner did not report for duty till 10.10.98. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry (i.e. disciplinary proceeding) was conducted under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act read with Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, but as the petitioner failed to produce any document in support of his illness, he was found guilty of the charges framed against him and was accordingly removed from service. The disciplinary authority awarded punishment of removal from service, with effect from 30.4.99, on the basis of the result of the departmental proceeding, which had been held in accordance with the relevant Rules and without violating any provisions of law and/or of the principles of natural justice. The respondents, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.