CONSTABLE AMAR LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 31.12.1994 wherein the Petitioner was ordered to be removed from service w.e.f. 31.12.1994 afternoon. The Petitioner indisputably proceeded, during the month of March 1993, on 60 days earned leave with one day suffix and was due to report back to duty on 9.5.1993, but he failed to report to duty on the due date and on his own reported only on 23.4.1994, after unauthorisedly absenting himself from duty for 348 days. This omission on his part was despite notices served on him for re-joining, as indicated in the impugned order itself. A statement of articles of charges with statement of imputation of mis-conduct in support of the articles of charges was issued, his explanation was obtained and an inquiry had been held. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report holding the charges proved and thereupon a second show-cause notice was issued enclosing a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer to which also he submitted a reply. Thereupon, the impugned order dated 31.12.1994 came to be passed. The fact that he was absent for the number of days noticed in the charge, is not in dispute and the question very much before the authorities below was whether he was justified in doing so. It is seen from the materials placed on record including the explanation submitted by him as also the final order passed that he had no genuine, plausible or reasonable explanation to exonerate him from the serious lapse committed by him in absenting unauthorisedly for nearly 348 days. The 2nd Respondent, who passed the final order also noticed the fact that before passing the final order on the disciplinary inquiry, the Petitioner has again over-stayed from leave w.e.f. 17.11.1994 (FN) and he also submitted a resignation on a plain paper from home. Thereupon, he was asked to report to the office by a letter dated 14.12.1994 to attend the final decision to be delivered against him, but he did not appear to have responded to the said letter also. Once again, he was by a communication dated 23.12.1994 instructed to be present and when contacted at the village, it appears that the Petitioner has stated that he has already submitted his resignation from service and the same may be accepted, but it could not be, according to the 2nd Respondent, acted upon since the same is not in order and it is in such circumstances the final order came to be passed on merits after considering the gravity of the charge, which has been held proved. After imposing the punishment of removal from services, the 2nd Respondent, which is said to be the competent authority also has passed orders relating to the regularisation of the past period of absence in the following manner:

(2.) It is this order of the year 1994, which is being challenged, as indicated earlier by filing the present writ petition in this Court on 5.11.1998. This writ petition merits dismissal even summarily on account of inordinate delay and laches, particularly, when there is not even any whisper of explanation attempted to explain the belated approach to the Court between the date of the order passed on 31.12.1994 till 5.11.1994. Even that apart, we find there is nothing worth on the merits of the challenge made also.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended by advancing two grounds of challenge to the impugned order of removal from service. Adverting to Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, which was relied upon in the proceedings initiated, it is contended that the said provision enabled the authorities to impose minor punishment only and, therefore, the punishment of removal from service, which is a major punishment could not have been imposed against the Petitioner and that on this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The further ground of challenge is that when the 2nd Respondent, in the penultimate portion of the impugned order has chosen to regularise the three distinct periods of absence including the one pertaining to 348 days, which was the subject-matter of the charge, which resulted in the order of removal, there was no basis for the charge itself and the very basis for the charge having disappeared by virtue of such regularisation, the order of removal could not be sustained.