CPL DEBASISH SEN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, petitioner has prayed that by issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to initiate the action for discharge of the petitioner from the service, being habitual offender.

(2.) PETITIONER - Debasish Sen was enrolled in the Indian Air Force (IAF) on 16.2.1993 and since the year, 2003, he is working in 33 Signal Unit, Air Force Unit, Jodhpur. It is averred in the instant petitioner that from August, 2002, the petitioner has serious problems from his home front and he was required to be proceed on leave very often from his unit to his home. The petitioner over -stayed, beyond the period of leave, at his home. Then, on reporting back on duty, he was charge -sheeted and punished with a few red ink entries in his service record. By 2.5.2003, the petitioner had already incurred 3 red ink entries. A warning vide letter dated 5.5.2003 (Annex. 1) was issued to the petitioner by the Station Commander, 33 Signal Unit of Air Force (respondent No.4) to the effect that his service document has revealed that there are a total of three entries of punishments (Red Ink) in his conduct sheet as on 2.5.2003. It was stated by respondent No.4 in Annex. 1 that in accordance with the policy, airman who falls in any of the following categories shall be treated as habitual Offender and is to be considered for discharge from service under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Air Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter as 'the Rules, 1969'). It was also stated in Annex. 1 that the petitioner is on the threshold of falling in the category of Habitual Offender as per Para 2(b) - Four Red Ink Punishment entries or (c) - Four Punishment entries (Red or Black ink entries included) for repeated omission of any one specific type of offence. The petitioner was, therefore, cautioned and counselled by respondent No.4 to mend himself and desist from act of indiscipline and he was also warned that addition of another punishment entry as required by the category of Habitual Offender referred in aforesaid para 2 will render him liable for discharge from service under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) of the Air Force Rules, 1969.

(3.) ON 31.12.2003, respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice (Annex. 3) along with the extract of Section IV of conduct sheet of sheet roll from 16.8.2002 to 15.8.2003. The petitioner gave reply dated 14.1.2004 (Annex. 4) to the show -cause notice stating therein that he may be discharged from the service as he is unable to meet the personnel requirements being in service and is also unable to cope up with the service rules and regulations, thereafter, the petitioner absented himself again on two more occasions without leave. Then, he was awarded one more Red Ink entry. Thus, by the end of the year 2003, he had incurred 6 Red Ink entries. The petitioner has averred in the instant petition that the authorities had decided to threaten the petitioner with the act of discharge, but, in fact, no action is taken by them. By July, 2004, the petitioner had incurred 7 Red Ink entries. On 1.9.2004, one more show -cause notice along with extract of Section IV conduct sheet of sheet roll from 16.8.2002 to 19.7.2040 was issued to the petitioner the effect that as to why he should not be discharged from service under Rule 15(2)(g)(ii) read in conjunction with Rule 15(2) of the Air Force Rules, 1969. The petitioner gave reply dated 13.9.2004 (Annex.7) to the show cause notice that he is aware of the service rules and regulations, but committed the offences of fulfill his personnel requirements. The petitioner also requested the Authorities to take appropriate action against him as per law. Thereafter, respondent No.4 on 1.11.2004 againissued a second warning (Annex. 8) to the petitioner and he was given one more chance to improve himself. He was also cautioned to be more careful in future and desist from act of indiscipline. Then, the petitioner again committed two offences of absence without leave, for which one more punishment was awarded. Thus, in all, he has incurred 8 Red Ink entries for 12 offences. Ultimately, the petitioner gave a legal notice dated 28.1.2005 (Annex. 9) to the Authorities, but no action has been taken by the Authorities.