RAVI KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing penalty order dated 21.03.2013 whereby petitioner has been removed from services and for quashing order dated 18.6.2013 whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and further prayer has been made for reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in Central Industrial Security Force on 16.11.2009. While continuing as such, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 27.09.2012 and a memo of charge was served upon the petitioner on 31.10.2012 alleging inter alia that while the petitioner was on leave for ten days between 31.07.2012 to 09.08.2012, he was arrested in a case being F.I.R. No. 210 of 2012 on 06.08.2012, but, he did not inform the department about his arrest as per Rule. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply. Being dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, in which, the Enquiry Officer found the charges levelled against the petitioner to be proved. Basing on such finding, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of removal from services, against which the petitioner preferred appeal which rejected. Hence, the petitioner knocked the door of this Court envoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner was on leave, in between on 06.08.2012 he was taken into judicial custody and was released on 06.11.2012, hence, there was no occasion for the petitioner to inform the department about the same. However, the petitioner through one of his friends, namely, Vivek Kumar, informed the department by FAX on 8.8.2012 about his arrest. Moreover, the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Muzaffar Nagar through FAX on 30.07.2012 also informed the Senior Commandant that non-bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner and for its compliance. Hence, the petitioner cannot be held guilty of suppression of fact. It has further been submitted that immediately the petitioner came out from jail on 6.11.2012, he reported the duty but his joining was refused. Referring to order dated 6.11.2012 passed in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 29025 of 2012, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Hon'ble Court considering all the materials, given relief by way of granting bail, but, this fact has neither been considered by the disciplinary authority nor by the appellate authority. Referring to Rule 3 of the CCA Rules, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that conduct of the petitioner does not come under the zone of misconduct, hence, the punishment awarded is excessive, disproportionate and de hors any Rule. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the criminal case instituted against the petitioner has ended with acquittal of the petitioner vide order dated 12.12.2014, but, in spite of his innocence, he had to suffer a lot for no fault on his part.