WP/6062/2008 of GURDEV SINGH, Vs THE CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, AND 2 OTHERS on 29 December 2023

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed to deciare the charge sheetdated 21.06.2005, the final order dated 17.12.2005, theorder dated 06. I 1.2006 as modified vide letter dated21.O2.2OO7 and also the order dated 29.06.2007 passed bythe respondents,ASillega1, arbitrary and unjust andconsequently to direct the respondents to grant allconsequential benefits to the petitioner.

2. Heard Smt. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for theSmt. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for theK. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for theUdaya Sri, learned counsel for theSri, learned counsel for thelearned counsel for thefor thethepetitioner and Sri K. Aravind Kumar, learned counsel forCentral Government appearing for the respondents.

Heard Smt. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for theSmt. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for theK. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for theUdaya Sri, learned counsel for theSri, learned counsel for thelearned counsel for thefor thethe

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for thepetitioner that the petitioner joined as a Constable inCentral Industrial Securitl, Force (hereinafter referred to as'CISF) on 13. 12. 1990. Petitioner was sent on deputation toDelhi Police and that while u.orking at Delhi, he fell sick on2l .O7 .2OO4 and has taken treatment. After recovery fromsickness, the petitioner reported to duty along with fitness

certilicate on 16. I I .2OO4 . He was informed that he wasrepatriated to his parent department of CISF atRamagundam Unit. On knowing about the same, he lostcontrol arrd fainted at the Delhi Office and was immediatelyshifted to a Hospital at Delhi for treatment and [was]discharged. The petitioner reported to duty on 23.03.2005at Ramagundam. Petitioner was issued a chargememorandum on 21 122.06.2005 and the said charge is [as]follows:

"Charqe:

The Delhr police by its letter dated 21.O7.2OO4 [has]

reported thar as clsF constable No.90I4o8293, GurudevSingh, CISF, RSTPS Unit had committed certain [indiscipline]and irreg-rlar acts, he was repatriated to his Parent [unit ]-CISF- He was to report before the CISF Head [quarters ][on]2l .O7 .2OO4 , bu t he reported before the Head [quarters ][on]09.03.2005. Thus, he availed [leave ]for [(232) ][days]unauthorizedly and rendered liable for [punishment."]

4. That he was to report before the CISF [Head ]Quarterson 27.O7.2004, but reported on 09.03.2005, [absenting ][for]232 days unauthorizedly and hence, [was liable ][for]punishment. For the charge memo, he submitted [an]explanation dated 30.O6.2005 requesting time and time [was]

granted. By a letter dated 16.O7 .2OO5, a detailedexplanation was submitted by narrating the events anddenying the charges. It is submitted that enquiry wasconducted by initiating disciplinary proceedings and thatthe enquiry officer conducted enquiry in violation ofprinciples of natural justice and no opportunier wasgranted. That the petitioner's father submitted a letter alongwith documents in the office of Delhi on 22.07.2005 andthat the sarne was not received. A major penalty forunauthorized absence was imposed and the same isdisproportionate to the gravity of charges made out in thecharge memo. It is also contended that it is doublepunishment i.e., loss of pay tor 232 days and the penaltyimposed. Hence, the punishment imposed is severe andappropriate relief be granted by taking into considerationthe said circumstances.

5. It is further contended that he was suffering withsickness and that the punishment imposed was harsh andeven if charge is held to be proved, it does not warrant amajor penalty. It is submitted that he put in 10 years of service and has about 20 years of future service andreduction of pay by two incremental stages permanentlywould have an adverse impact on career and also a financialbearing on retirement benefits.reduction of pay by two incremental stages permanentlywould have an adverse impact on career and also a financialbearing on retirement benefits.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents contendedthat the petitioner was repatriated to CISF police from Delhipolice on 21.O7.2OO4 and he was to report at CISF HeadQuarters, Delhi on 22.07.2OO4, but the petitioner has notreported on 22.O7.2OO4 and he has reported to duty after Tmonths 18 days i.e., on 1O.O2.2OO5. That he did notintimate the same to the concerned officer at RamaguldamUnit.

7 . The learned counsel for the respondents in learned counsel for the respondents in for the respondents in respondents in in hissubmissions has referred to a letter dated 29.71.2004 of theoffice of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi wherein thepetitioner is repatriated from Delhi Police (Serial No.26 thepetitioner's name is shor.r,n) and his date of relieving ismentioned as 21.O7 ,2OO4. [t is further stated that when thedelinquent officer sent a communication on 22.02.2OO4 toAssistant Commissioner of police, Chanakyapuri, through The learned counsel for the respondents in learned counsel for the respondents in for the respondents in respondents in in his - deputation in Delhi police expired and [was repatriated ][to]his parent Unit of CISF. It is also [submitted ][that ][on]repatriation, he was transferred to [Ramagundam Thermal]Power Station at Ramagundem. But, the [petitioner ][did ][not]report to duty at Ramagundem.

It is also contended that the contended that the that the the [[petitioner ][was ][not]][[was ][not]][[not]]

8. It is also contended that the contended that the that the the [[petitioner ][was ][not]][[was ][not]][[not]]employee of Delhi Police as he has [been ][repatriated to ][CISF,]Ramagundam Unit and it is for him to [produce ]all [the]relevant documents to the appropriate [authority ][at]Ramagundam Unit.

9. It is submitted that the delinquent officer along withmedical certificate dated 16.11.2004 went to ISC, [Delhi]Police, Chanakyapuri, to [join ]duty. It [was ]informed to himthat he has been repatriated. Three recall letters [dated]06.1.2005, 18.01.2005 and 27.O1.2O05 [were ]sent to [his]address of native place and the oflicer received the thirdreca-ll letter dated 27 .Ol -2OO5.

10. The representation dated I0.02.2005 of the delinquentwas received on 15.02.2005. The officer reported to duty on 09.03.2005 to the Chief Officer, CISF, Neu, Delhi. The delinquent officer without prior permission of the controllingofficer unauthorizedly abstained from dut5r frorn 2l.OT.2OO4to 09.03.2005 (232 days). On reporting to duty, on10.03.2005 at the Chief Office, CISF, he was transferredand posted to the Unit of CISF at RTpS. The delinquentofficer reported to duty at CISF Unit, RTpS on 23.03.2005.The delinquent ofhcer has intentionally and deliberatelyabstained from duty frorn 21.O7.2O04 to O9.O3.2OOS withoutprior permission of the controlling ofhcer which shows thegross dereliction of duties by the delinquent oflicer.

1 1 . It is also submitted that the evidence of prosecutionwitnesses was recorded in the presence of the delinquentofficer and an opportunity to cross examine the witnesseswas availed satisfactorily by the officer. The delinquentofficer was afforded with an opportunity to appoint a personto defend his case and the disciplinary proceedings againstthe officer urere conducted as per Rules.His requests for granting time for submitting hisofficer was afforded with an opportunity to appoint a personto defend his case and the disciplinary proceedings againstthe officer urere conducted as per Rules.His requests for granting time for submitting hisexplanation to the enquiry report was granted. It is furthersubmitted that as per the facts stated supra, there was nosubmitted that as per the facts stated supra, there was no -

-

violation of the principles of natural justice and that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules, hence,the contentions raised by the petitioner,s counsel arewithout any basis and are devoid of merits.the contentions raised by the petitioner,s counsel arewithout any basis and are devoid of merits.

12. It is submitted that the CISF is a disciplined force and not informing about his sickness to the higher ofhcialswithin time and abstaining from duty, unauthorizedly,without obtaining any permission beyond the prescribedperiod would amount to dereliction of duty.within time and abstaining from duty, unauthorizedly,without obtaining any permission beyond the prescribedperiod would amount to dereliction of duty.

13. It is also contended that by order dated 2I.02.2OO7

the ofhce of the Deputy Genera_l of police, CISF has taken alenient view and has reduced the punishment of appellateorder as below:

From: Reduction of pay by O2 stages from Rs.3795/ roRs.3625/- in the time scale of pay of Rs.3,2OO-85 -49OO tor aperiod of 02 yeats with immediate effect. [t is furtherdirected that the delinquent officer will not earn theincrements of pay during the period of reduction ancl that onexpiry of the period, ttle reduction will have the effecr ofpostponing his future increments of pay.

To: punishment imposed is reduced as below Reduction of pay by O2 stages from Rs.371O/- in thetime scale of pay of Rs.3,200-85-49O0 for a period of O2years with imrnediate effect. It is further directed that thedelinquent officer will not earn tlle increments of pay duringthe period of reduction and that on expiry of the period, thereduction will have the effect of postponing his futureihcrements of pay.

14. Hence, the punishment, which has been imposed, isnot disproportionate arrd the procedure and rules have beenadhered during the proceedings, hence, no relief be granted.

15. The learned counsel for the respondents has reliedupon the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court inWrit Petition No.B250 of 2O2O dated 27.07.2023 for tbeproposition of unauthorized absence without leave. Thelearned counsel relied on the [judgment ]of Apex court inUnion of India and others Vs Datta Linga Toshatwadl1nCivil Appeal No.6785 of 20O5 (filed by a memo dated23.08.2023) for the proposition that a member of [a]uniformed force who overstays his leave by a few days [must]be able to give a satisfactory explanation. It is contendedthat Member(s) of the uniform forces cannot absent*tttemselves on frivolous pleas, having regard to the nature of'izoosl [r: ][scc ][zos]

the duties enjoyed on these forces. Such indiscipline, if [it]

goes unpunished, will greatly affect the discipline of theforces.

I 6. In reply to the submissions of the respondentscounsel, learned counsel for the petitioner has submittedthat the facts in W.P.No.825O of 2O2O are not applicable [to]the present case as unauthorized absence is approximatelytwo years in the said case and the reliance [placed ]on theApex Court's judgment is not applicable

17. Heard the learned counsels, perused the record andthe orders passed by the authorities. The punishmentimposed is proportionate to the gravity of charges framedThe petitioner failed to join his duties arrd remained absentfrom duty, the petitioner is a member of disciplined forceOne must be mindful of the fact that discipline is theimplicit hallmark of such forces and a non-negotiablecondition of service. Absence for a prolonged period, whichif accepted, would send a wrong signal to others in serviceThe disciplinary authority having considered the entirematerial on record. and the enquiry officer( report and the evidence and exhibits [placed ][on ][record ][has ][arrived ][at ][the]conclusion that the [delinquent ][ofhcer ][is ][guilty ][of ][the ][charge]him [and held ][that ][the charge is proved']framed against

18. The scope for [interference ][with the ][quantum ][of]punishment under [Article 226 ][of ][the ][Constitution ][of ][India ][is]limited. There [is ][no ][procedural ][impropriety ][and the ][decision]arrived at is based [on ][material ][on ][record' ][No ][grounds ][have]been made out warranting [interference ][in ][the ][order ][passed]by the authorities. [The revisional ][authority has ][modified]the order of tJle [disciplinary ][authority ][by ][reducing ][the]punishment imposed. [This Court ][is ][of ][the ][opinion ][that]ends of [justice ][would be met ][if ][the ][order ][of ][the ][revisional]authorit5r is upheld [and the ][same ][is ][upheld']

-

lg. Accordingly, [the ][Writ ][Petition is dismissed' ][There shall]be no order as [to ][costs.]

Miscellaneous [petitions, ][if ][any, ][pencling ][in ][this ][Writ]

Petition, shall [stand ][closed.]

SD/. [MOHD. ][SANAULLAH ][ANSARI]GIS//TRUE [COPY/']SECTIOFFICER

To,i 313 [33 ][8 3tr1[^HVft'ts':'i]#:SEt?[of,Jn%u=***ENr ]IOPUC]2two CD [CoPies]

BMGJ

couNSEL

HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212023

ORDERWP.No.6062 of 2008

IHE [sI4]14:(o6oo2[7]IIAE702[c2* oSsPArcHeO[t]

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS

9LbYA