This judgment dismisses a writ petition by a CRPF constable challenging his removal from service for deserting his post. The Court held that the punishment was not disproportionate and refused to sit in appeal over disciplinary findings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI** % Reserved on: November 7, 2016 Decided on: April 03, 2017 + WP (C) 9853/2015 TEK CHAND ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. L.R. Khatana, Mr. Sudhir Naagar and Mr. Vijay, Advocates.
versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ......Respondents Through: Ms.Jyoti Dutt Sharma and Mr. Sarfraz Ahmed, Advocates with Mr. S.S.Sejwal, (Law Officer)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
JUDGMENT
INDIRA BANERJEE, J
===================================================================== .
WP(C) NO. 9853/2015
Page 1 of 9
Authority, whereby the Revisional application of the petitioner was dismissed.
.
WP(C) NO. 9853/2015
Page 2 of 9
applied for, and was granted earned leave of 35 days. The petitioner returned from leave on 09.11.2013.
===================================================================== .
WP(C) NO. 9853/2015
Page 3 of 9
===================================================================== .
WP(C) NO. 9853/2015
w.e.f. 16.06.2014 by an office Order No.P-Eight-3/14-89-Estt.Two-89 Battalion dated 16.06.2014. The petitioner filed an appeal dated 11.08.2014 with the DIG, South Srinagar. The said appeal has apparently been dismissed by a reasoned order dated 05.12.2014.
===================================================================== .
WP(C) NO. 9853/2015
Page 5 of 9
petitioner was awarded punishment of stoppage of three increments.
===================================================================== .
WP(C) NO. 9853/2015
Page 6 of 9
December. From the writ petition, it appears that after 18.11.2013, the next date was fixed on 26.11.2013. However, there could be no reason to overstay leave till 26.11.2013. The petitioner could have returned on 18.11.2013, applied for leave again and then left. Similarly, if the verdict was given on 28.11.2013, the petitioner could have again gone back on 28.11.2013. Even after receipt of the letter dated 27.11.2013, the petitioner chose to report to his duty on 30.11.2013 in Kuldeep Singh Vs Union of India and Others reported in 143 (2007) DLT 327 DB, a Division Bench of this Court held that habitual absentism and unauthorised absence was a serious matter and punishment of removal was not disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.
===================================================================== .
WP(C) NO. 9853/2015
Page 7 of 9
reported in 1987 SC 2386 and Surender Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Police and others reported in 123 (2005) DLT 185 (DB).
===================================================================== .
WP(C) NO. 9853/2015
Page 8 of 9
Punishment of removal for leaving post without prior permission and without intimation and remaining absent for about 25 days, cannot be said to be so disproportionate to the gravity of the offence, as to warrant interference of this Court. Moreover, as observed above, as a Bench of coordinate strength, we are bound by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kuldeep Singh (supra) and Pradeep Kumar Singh (supra).
INDIRA BANERJEE, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J April 03, 2017/ n
.
WP(C) NO. 9853/2015
Page 9 of 9
3 issues framed by the court
Whether removal from service is a disproportionate punishment for habitual absence without leave in armed forces disciplined services.
Whether the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the quantum of punishment awarded in departmental proceedings.
Whether the petitioner established any procedural lapses or violation of principles of natural justice during the inquiry.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kuldeep Singh Vs Union of India and OthersDistinguished¶53
143 (2007) DLT 327 DB · Who else cites this
Om Kumar and Others Vs. Union of IndiaExplained¶54
(2001) 2 SCC 386 · Who else cites this
Etawah and others Vs. Hoti LalExplained¶54
2003 (3) SCC 605 · Who else cites this
Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India and othersExplained¶54
1987 SC 2386
Surender Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Police and othersExplained¶58
123 (2005) DLT 185 (DB) · Who else cites this
Pradeep Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India and AnotherApplied¶59
186 (2012) DLT 627 (DB) · Who else cites this
Tek Chand
Union of India
Indira Banerjee
V. Kameswar Rao
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
