AMARENDRA GAUTAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.03.2007 passed by Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Bihar Sector, Patna (respondent no. 2) in No. R.XIII.1/(AG)/2006-EC.3 by which he rejected the revision petition filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 02.11.2006 passed by D.I.G., Group Center, C.R.P.F., Muzaffarpur (Bihar) in No. R.XIII-8/2006-EC-1 on 02.11.2006 by which he dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner affirming the dismissal order dated 22.06.2006 passed by the Commandant 116 Battalion CRPF, Dhaligaon, Bongaigaon (Assam) in departmental enquiry in which petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of an appropriate order commanding the authority concerned to reinstate him in service from the date of his termination.

(2.) The case of petitioner is that the petitioner was recruited as constable on 13.08.1999 under 116 Battalion of the CRPF and he worked at various destinations. The petitioner was while posted at Dhaligaon, he was sent for D & M training course at Neemuch C.T.C. 1st but unfortunately he was fallen ill and thus remained absent for four days from the training from 19.03.2005 to 22.03.2005. The petitioner could not recover from his illness as a result whereof the concerned authority granted mid-term leave for 15 days from 24.03.2005 to 07.04.2005 and, thereafter, he proceeded to his village home but over stayed there for 30 days and subsequently, Vice Principal, C.T.C. 1st gave a movement order to him on 11.05.2005 and petitioner reported in the Battalion on 17.05.2005 and submitted relevant documents before the Company Commandant who regularized the above stated period of absence and, accordingly, granted commuted leave with half pay from 19.03.2005 to 22.03.2005 and without pay commuted leave from 08.04.2005 to 07.05.2005 vide order dated 14.07.2005 but subsequently, petitioner was given ten days line confinement for the aforesaid absence from training vide order dated 19.09.2005 by the Commandant. Due to aforesaid line confinement, the petitioner became semi conscious and left the camp on 21.09.2005 and, any how, reached his house where he got his treatment and when his condition was improved, he came in his camp on 04.10.2005 but again he was tortured as a result whereof he left the camp on 12.10.2005 and admitted in mental hospital where his treatment was done till 02.01.2006. After recovery, he again reported to the camp on 04.01.2006 but on 21.01.2006, a memorandum of charge was served to him to which petitioner submitted his reply narrating the entire facts but since the petitioner was ailing seriously, he could not participate in departmental proceeding and seeing the mental condition of the petitioner, his father sent a petition to enquiry officer praying therein to stay the departmental proceeding till recovery of petitioner from his ailment but the enquiry officer passed ex parte order in departmental proceeding and similarly, the Commandant dismissed him from service without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred appeal before the D.I.G., CRPF, Muzaffarpur but the said appeal was dismissed on 02.11.2006 and, thereafter, petitioner preferred a revision petition before the I.G., CRPF but the same was also dismissed without considering the issues involved in the aforesaid revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that admittedly, the order in departmental proceeding was passed in absence of the petitioner and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself, particularly, in the circumstance when during period of the aforesaid departmental proceeding, petitioner was ailing from mental disorder and, therefore, it is a clear cut violation of Principle of Natural Justice but neither appellate authority nor revisional authority did pay any heed to the aforesaid fact. It is further contended by him that no enquiry report was communicated to the petitioner before passing order of removal from service and, therefore, in absence of enquiry report, petitioner was not in a position to raise any objection at the time of passing of order of removal from his service. It is further contended by him that as a matter of fact, enquiry officer as well as concerned Commandant were biased and they proceeded in the departmental enquiry in very haste manner without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and, therefore, on the ground of biasness, the order of removal of the petitioner from service cannot sustain. It is further contended by him that father of the petitioner informed the enquiry officer about the mental condition of the petitioner in due course and also produced medical prescriptions and certificates but neither enquiry officer nor any other authorities did consider the aforesaid medical prescriptions and certificates in its proper way and without making any enquiry about the genuineness of the aforesaid documents, the authorities concerned observed that the aforesaid documents were manufactured and fabricated documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that dismissal from service is a very harsh punishment and the aforesaid punishment cannot be awarded only because of the fact that petitioner absented himself from the camp or over stayed for certain periods particularly, in the circumstance when there was specific defence of the petitioner that he was suffering from mental disorder during the aforesaid period. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on account of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition should be allowed and the order of removal of the petitioner from service must be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that admittedly, petitioner had already been punished by the concerned authority for not attending the training programme but again he was punished for the same offence and, therefore, the subsequent punishment of the petitioner is hit by the theory of double jeopardy.