OM PARKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Constable in Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB" for short) during the year 1975. On 16/7/1995 i.e. after almost 20 years of service, the petitioner left his posting at Group Centre Headquarters/lines, Suderbani at 0755 hours without prior permission from the competent authority. Even after being served with two notices for resumption of his duties by the Group Centre SSB, Sunderbani, the petitioner did not resume his duties. When the notices issued to the petitioner for resumption of duty did not receive any response from the petitioner, a Court of Inquiry was ordered on 15/9/1995 to findout the circumstances under which the petitioner had, without any permission or authority, abandoned his services from Group Centre Headquarters, Sunderbani. On the basis of the recommendation of the Court of Inquiry, the Competent Authority declared the petitioner a deserter with effect from 16/7/1995 vide Order No. 9310-14 dtd. 26/9/1995.

(2.) Keeping in view the findings of the Court of Inquiry and regard been had to the service record of the petitioner, the petitioner was also found to be a habitual offender having committed misconduct in as many as 21 times in the past. Accordingly, the Departmental enquiry was ordered against the petitioner. The statement of Articles of Charge and statement of imputation of misconduct and misbehaviour in support of the Articles of charge along with the list of documents and prosecution witnesses proposed to be examined, were served upon the petitioner vide memo 9954 dtd. 18/10/1995. The Departmental Enquiry was entrusted to Shri J. L. Chakraborty, Deputy Commandant, who, on completion of the enquiry, submitted his report to the Commandant.

(3.) From the report it was found that the charges framed against the petitioner were duly substantiated and proved. Accordingly, a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner with proposed penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to make representation, if any, on the proposed penalty for his misconduct and misbehavior. The petitioner submitted his representation pointing out therein that the Enquiry officer had ignored the medical certificates submitted by him to justify his absence from duty. On consideration of all relevant material and the representation submitted by the petitioner against the notice of proposed penalty, it was thus found that petitioner had absconded from duty without proper permission and authority and, therefore, was guilty of committing misconduct unbecoming of a member of the disciplined force. The Commandant, thus reached a conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in service and, consequently, awarded him a punishment of dismissal form service with effect from 9/12/1995.