CYRIL TOPPO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order dated 24.9.2012 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2605 of 2006, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant was unauthorizedly absent from duty from 10.1.2002 to 10.3.2002 i.e. for sixty days and that the orders passed by the Commandant and the DIG, CISF are lawful. The appellant remained absent from the duties unauthorizedly between 10.1.2002 to 10.3.2002 i.e. for sixty days. When the appellant returned back to his office on 11.3.2002, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and a show cause was issued on 2.4.2002 vide memo No. 1773. The appellant submitted his explanation stating that his mother was seriously ill and that he was granted casual leave from 7.1.2002 for five days. The explanation submitted by the appellant was rejected and enquiry was ordered to be conducted. The Inquiry Officer found the charges proved against the appellant. Based on the Inquiry Officer's report, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of dismissal of the petitioner-appellant from service vide order dated 9.12.2002. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred statutory appeal before the appellate authority, which was also dismissed vide order dated 29.4.2003. Challenging the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, the appellant filed W.P.(S) No. 2605 of 2006. By order dated 24.9.2012, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant remained unauthorizedly absent without any valid reasons and the said action amounts to gross indiscipline and that the appellant being a member of disciplined force, the punishment imposed on the appellant is commensurate with the act of misconduct. Challenging the said order, the appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as well as the learned Single Judge did not keep in view that the appellant has justifiable reason for his absence and that since his mother was unwell, he could not return back to his duties. The learned counsel placing reliance upon Civil Appeal No. 2106 of 2012 submitted that unless the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority records the finding that unauthorized absence was a willful one and that it amounted to serious misconduct, the punishment of dismissal cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no such finding has been recorded by the disciplinary authority, which the learned Single Judge did not keep in view. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant was not a habitual absentee and that it was only a one time act of unauthorized absence and that being so the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the proved charges.

(3.) We have heard, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India Mr. Faiz-ur-Rahman.