PREM PAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.10.2009, whereby he has been removed from service, and also the order dated 31.3.2010 passed by the revisional authority upholding the order dated 21.10.2009.

(2.) The brief facts, as has been argued on behalf of the petitioner, is that the petitioner had been appointed as Constable under the Central Industrial Security Force in the year 2000. After appointment, the petitioner was discharging his duty to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. He had sought leave on 6.4.2009 for taking rest after excessive duty, as he was not feeling well. He was under the impression that he had been given weekly rest, as such he was sleeping on the terrace in the ailing condition. When he was informed by the Head Constable, namely, B.D.Sharma that he had been deputed for night duty on 6.4.2009, he came to know that he was not given weekly rest. The absence of the petitioner on 6.4.2009 was treated as misconduct and accordingly the memorandum of charge was served upon him and he was removed from service. It has been submitted that the punishment of removal from service is very harsh and not commensurate with the charges. The petitioner had brought this fact to the notice of the revisional authority by filing appropriate application, but the revisional authority also had not considered the same and upheld the order passed by the disciplinary authority.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the punishment of removal from service is very harsh and that cannot be given only for absence of one day. If any misconduct had been committed by the petitioner, under the Conduct and Discipline Rules, there are other punishments also, that should have been imposed upon the petitioner. The enquiry officer has not found the said absence as wilful absence and in absence of such finding, the impugned order of removal is not tenable in the eye of law.