FIROZ KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of order dated 20.02.2015 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6626 of 2007 whereby, writ petition filed by the appellant -writ petitioner has been dismissed, the appellant is before us through the medium of the instant Letters Patent Appeal, which is at admission stage, but with the consent of the counsel for both the sides taken on Board for its final consideration.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant was appointed on 18.03.1993 as Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F) in Uttar Pradesh and after undergoing training, he was posted in B.S.L, Bakau and subsequently, on 26.07.1999 he was posted at A.T.C, Ranchi. The appellant was detained for induction duty at Kolkata Airport on 07.11.2001 for which he was informed by the Company Commander to report to the party in -charge of H.E.C contingent on 07.11.2001 (afternoon) for collection of arms and ammunitions for moving to Kolkata Airport by Hatia -Howrah Express. The charge against the appellant is that he intentionally remained absent without leave to avoid induction duty at Kolkata Airport. Further allegation against him was that he had not taken any permission from the competent authority which tantamounts to gross indiscipline and disobedience of lawful order of the superiors. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the appellant and he was suspended vide order dated 09.11.2001. An enquiry officer was appointed and after completing the enquiry proceeding in which the appellant also joined, the appellant was punished vide order dated 17.05.2002 by the Disciplinary Authority with reduction of pay -scale and stoppage of annual increments for three years with further effect on future service. By the same order, it was ordered that during the period of suspension, the appellant would not be entitled to get salary, allowance etc., except the subsistence allowance and that the said period would be treated as period not on duty. The appellant being aggrieved of the said order, filed appeal which also met the same fate vide order dated 30.09.2002 which constrained him to file the revision however, the revision petition was also dismissed by the revisional authority vide order dated 03.07.2003. The appellant thus, assailed all three orders in the writ petition, which stood dismissed on all counts including, the proportionality of the quantum of punishment.

(3.) Dr. S.N. Pathak, the learned Senior counsel for the appellant without joining the issue with regard to the other aspects of the case, submits that the punishment imposed upon the appellant is not commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. Therefore, the present case falls for reconsideration on the quantum of punishment by the concerned authority. He submitted that admittedly, it is a case of one day's leave without seeking permission for which the appellant in any case, had tendered explanation before the Disciplinary Authority stating that he on the fateful day i.e. 07.11.2001 had developed acute abdominal pain for which he had to get himself admitted in the H.E.C Hospital, Ranchi. He was medically examined by the concerned Doctor and for his pain, he was X -rayed also.