WP/20449/2002 of Meghavat Mantri Nayak, No.941131875 Ex.V.T, Vs Dy.Inspector General of Police, on 28 December 2012

ORDER:

Heard, Sri M.R. Tagore, learned counsel for the petitioner and SriPonnam Ashok Goud, Assistant Socilitor General for the respondents

2. The petitioner earlier at the relevant time was working as aConstable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) at Warangal. A Disciplinary Enquiry was commenced against him on a charge ofdesertion. Ultimately, after considering the explanation of thepetitioner, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 23.01.2000dismissing the petitioner from service w.e.f.23-01-2000 (Afternoon).

3. The petitioner filed an appeal questioning the aforesaiddismissal and the said appeal was also dismissed by the appellateauthority. Questioning the said orders, the petitioner has come up withthis writ petition.

4. The charge framed against the petitioner is as follows :

“That the said No.941131875 CT(GD) Meghavat MantriNayak of D/113 Bn CRPF while functioning as CT(GD)inD/113 Bn during the period from 15/7/95 committed anact of misconduct and disobedience of orders in hiscapacity as a member of the Force under section 11(1) ofCRPF Act 1949 in that he deserted from the unit lines,Bheemaram, Warangal on 09/11/98 without permissionof competent authority and did not report for duty evenafter repeated directions which is pre-judicial to goodorders and discipline of the Force.”Nayak of D/113 Bn CRPF while functioning as CT(GD)inD/113 Bn during the period from 15/7/95 committed anact of misconduct and disobedience of orders in hiscapacity as a member of the Force under section 11(1) ofCRPF Act 1949 in that he deserted from the unit lines,Bheemaram, Warangal on 09/11/98 without permissionof competent authority and did not report for duty evenafter repeated directions which is pre-judicial to goodorders and discipline of the Force.”

5. Thus, it is clear that the charge levelled against the petitioner is one of desertion. It is true that the petitioner obtained a medicalcertificate, from MGM Hospital, Warangal, showing that he requiresmedical rest from 05.11.1998 to 19.11.1998. However, the CompetentOfficer directed the petitioner to stay at unit lines at Warangal duringthe rest period. But, without intimating the authorities, he left the unitand remained absent from 10.11.1998 to 15.05.1999 i.e., for 186 days.

This was treated as deserting the unit as there was no intimation fromthe petitioner.

6. A perusal of the order of the Disciplinary Authority and alsoAppellate authority would show that sufficient opportunity was given tothe petitioner to represent his case. It may also be noted that at onestage, the petitioner requested leave for five years with a lien to enablehim to prosecute the Degree Course from Sri Venkteswara University, which was refused. The above attitude ofthe petitioner shows that he thought that Central Reserve Police Forceis an organization in which he can work and leave, as he likes. Thiscan be said to be a textbook example of absenteeism fromGovernment Service i.e., especially a disciplinary force like CentralReserve Police Force without intimating any authority.

7. Having regard to this conduct of the petitioner and the charge,the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of removal from serviceand the appellate authority confirmed it.

8. Sri M.R.Tagore, learned counsel for the petitioner, however,relying upon the order of this Court in W.P.No.14868 of 2001, dated03.08.2011, and a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tripura and Others V Naresh Chandra Das[[1]], pointed out thathaving regard to the principles laid down in the said decisions thepunishment of removal from service must be held to be a highlydisproportionate one and he requested a lesser punishment should beimposed.

9. It may be noted that in Naresh Chandra Das’s case (supra), itwas held that the punishment of dismissal from service was anadequate punishment. But having regard to the circumstances that theconcerned respondent therein had two years of service left the courthad showed leniency and directed reinstatement, but without back wages. Similarly in W.P.No.14868 of 2001, the facts are alsodifferent. It was found there on evidence that the delinquent in thatcase was earlier punctual and it was only a case of unauthorizedabsence for the reasons beyond his control. Those two cases are notcomparable with the present case where the charge relates todesertion from the unit itself.

10. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that thepunishment of removal of service can be said to be proper.Accordingly, I regret I am unable to agree with Sri M.R.Tagore, evenon the question of punishment.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

_____________________

N.RAVI SHANKAR, J

28[th] December 2012Rds

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

WRIT PETITION NO.20449 OF 2002

Date:28.12.2012

Rds

[1](2007) 15 SCC 759