Dismissed

Raj Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC15 Nov 2019W.P.(C)/11101/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging dismissal from CRPF service for absence without leave was dismissed. The Court noted the petitioner failed to explain absence from duty, did not respond to enquiry notices, and produced inadequate medical records without linking them to the absence period or reporting to duty post-discharge.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 05.03.2005 dismissing petitioner from service remains valid and is maintained.

Raj Kumar Singh Vs Union of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11101/2019

¶2

RAJ KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Umesh Singh and Ms. Karishma Singh, Advocates

¶3

versus

¶4

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Rahul Sharma and Mr. C. K. Bhatt, Advocates Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, Govt. Pleader for R-1

¶5

CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

¶6

O R D E R

¶7

% 15.11.2019

¶8

The present petition challenges an order dated 5^th March, 2005 passed by the Commandant of the 65^th Battalion, dismissing from service the Petitioner, who was working as Constable (GD) in the Central Reserve Police Force (‘CRPF’), on the ground that he remained absent without prior permission from duty with effect from 17^th March, 2004 which constituted an offence punishable under Section 11 (1) the CRPF Act, 1949.

¶9

The above impugned order was passed consequent upon a disciplinary enquiry, the notice of which was sent by the registered post to the Petitioner at his last known address on 26^th November, 2004. As it transpired, despite such notice the Petitioner did not participate in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer completed the ex parte enquiry and submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority (DA) i.e. the Commandant on 1^st February, 2005.

¶10

W.P.(C) 11101/2019 Page 1 of 4

¶11

The DA sent a copy of the report to the Petitioner at his last known address on 30^th February, 2005. Again, despite service of these documents, the petitioner failed to respond.

¶12

It appears that the Petitioner, after a period of 10 years, submitted an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Bhopal only much later on 5^th May, 2015. This appeal was rejected by a detailed order dated 29^th June, 2015. The revision petitions filed against the said order have also been dismissed on 28^th September, 2015.

¶13

A further appeal filed before the Director General of CRPF was rejected on 2^nd January, 2017. It appears that the Petitioner persisted with another representation which was also rejected on 30^th May, 2017.

¶14

Initially, the Petitioner approached the High Court of Allahabad with a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 23240/2018), which was rejected by the said Court on 30^th October, 2018 for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

¶15

The Court enquired with learned counsel for the Petitioner about the real reason of the Petitioner’s absence from duty from 27^th March, 2004 even after the expiry of earned leave.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the Petitioner was unwell during that period. However, there is no document placed on record to show what type of ailment the Petitioner was suffering from and whether it was of a kind that prevented the petitioner from even communicating to

¶17

W.P.(C) 11101/2019 Page 2 of 4

¶18

the Respondents of his inability to report for duty on 25^th March, 2004. There is a copy of a handwritten prescription dated 10^th March, 2004 issued by the Metro Hospitals and Heart Institute. However, this again says nothing about Petitioner’s actual illness which prevented him from reporting to duty on 17^th March, 2004. There is also another endorsement of 18^th May, 2004 which states that the Petitioner was hospitalised between 10^th March and 15^th May, 2004.

¶19

Assuming this to be true, there is no explanation as to why the Petitioner did not apply for extension of his leave or for medical leave or for that matter, report to duty after being discharged from hospital. It is also not known as to whether any of the above medical documents were ever produced before the Respondents. The other document placed on record is a laboratory report of 9^th April, 2005, which again does not help the case of the Petitioner. The medical records of October, 2005 appear to indicate that the Petitioner was suffering from Hepatitis B at that stage, but then again the Petitioner does not appear to have brought all of this to the notice of the Respondents at any stage by producing the requisite medical record.

¶20

Importantly, the Petitioner has no explanation to offer for not responding to the notices issued to him by the Enquiry Officer and to the report of the DA sent to him at his address. There is a huge gap between the medical reports of 1^st April, 2009 and 14^th October, 2013.

¶21

The Petitioner does not appear to have been serious about following up his case of dismissal with the Respondents. The CRPF is obviously a

¶22

W.P.(C) 11101/2019 Page 3 of 4

¶23

disciplined force and long periods of absence without any proper explanation cannot be expected to be condoned by the Respondents. Indeed, this is an extraordinary case of the Petitioner not having bothered to inform the Respondents of the actual reasons for his absence and not having produced the medical records to justify his absence.

¶24

In the circumstances, the Court sees no reasons for interfering with the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

¶26

TALWANT SINGH, J.

¶27

NOVEMBER 15, 2019

¶28

¶29

W.P.(C) 11101/2019 Page 4 of 4

Raj Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Aalok Khanna and Ors. Vs Standard Chartered Bank

Simons Motor Driving Training Institute & Research Society Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Budh Sagar Vs Staff Selection Commission through Its Chairman & Ors.

Neeraj Syal Vs State Bank of India

R.K. & Sons (Huf) & Anr. Vs Indiabulls Commercial Credit Ltd.& Anr.

Sh. Karambir Vs Delhi Jal Board

D S Kundu Vs Registrar, Cooperative Socieities

Dr. Nand Kishore Garg Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Shri Aalok Khanna and Ors. Vs Standard Chartered Bank

Budh Sagar Vs Staff Selection Commission through Its Chairman & Ors.

Neeraj Syal Vs State Bank of India

Man Singh Bhadoria Vs Union of India and Ors.

B P Gupta Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr. Vs L.K. Bahl & Anr.