Petitioner, a CISF constable, challenged dismissal and appellate orders consequent to unauthorised absence. The holding officer dismissed the writ, finding the proceedings compliant with law and the misconduct serious.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7058 of 1998
=========================================================== Krishna Nand Singh, son of Sri Sita Ram Singh, resident of village – P.O. – Mainpur, District - Gajipur (U.P.)
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India through A.I.G. (R & S) C.I.S.F. Head Quarter, New Delhi, 110003. 2. Commandant Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs) Vindh Nager, District - Sindhi (M.P.) 3. Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Eastern Zone, Head Quarter , 19 , Telegraph colony, Kidwai Puri, Patna ( Bihar)
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. ASHOK KUMAR CHOUDHARY 1 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raj Ballabh Prasad Yadav =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 18 -04-2014
The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing of an order contained in Memo No. 1054 dated 28.6.1996 passed by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) VSTPP (Unit) Vindhya Nager, District - Sidhi (Madhya Pradesh). By the said order, punishment of dismissal of petitioner from CISF services has been awarded. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General, CISF, East Zone, Headquarter, Patna, contained in Memo No. 4381 dated 21.6.1997. By the said order, the appellate authority has affirmed the order of the disciplinary authority and
Patna High Court CWJC No.7058 of 1998 dt. 18-04-2014
2/5
dismissed the appeal.
Short fact of the case is that the petitioner, who was constable in CISF was charged on an allegation that while he was in CISF unit VSTPP Vindhya Nager, a movement order dated 2.6.1994 was issued directing him to proceed on regular posting to CISF Unit, HEP Uri ( Jammu & Kashmir) after availing ten (10) days E.L. and fifteen (15) days joining time. Accordingly, he was due to report to CISF Unit, HEP Uri on or before 28.6.1994, but till date i.e. till the date of order of charge memo dated 22.12.1994, he did not report to the CISF Unit HEP, Uri nor he informed his senior. He remained unauthorisedly over staying E.L. and joining time. He was further charged that he was issued with call up notice vide letter no. E- 38015/VSTPP/- Adm/ 1-94-3190 dated 22nd October, 1994 at home address directing him to report to CISF Unit, HEP Uri forthwith, but neither he reported at CISF Unit HEP Uri nor he responded to the said letter. Accordingly, on the allegations of dereliction of duty, misconduct and disobedience to lawful orders, he was proceeded departmentally. Enquiry Officer was appointed and charge sheet was delivered to the petitioner on 14.12.1995 through the office of Assistant Commandant, CISF Unit, Ghazipur (U.P.), who reported that charged official was passing his time at home and had not gone to his new place of
Patna High Court CWJC No.7058 of 1998 dt. 18-04-2014
3/5
posting. After conducting enquiry the enquiry officer submitted his report. During enquiry the petitioner also pleaded guilty of charges on 6.3.1996 . Even thereafter, regular departmental proceeding was initiated. After the conclusion of enquiry the enquiry officer submitted its report, which was subsequently communicated to the petitioner through registered post, which was acknowledged by the petitioner through his communication in which he simply stated that he wanted to come to the office but could not do the same on domestic grounds and a suitable decision in the matter may be taken and intimated to the petitioner. Finally, order of punishment i.e. dismissal from service was passed by the competent authority i.e. Commandant, by its order dated 28.6.1996 and the said order was also affirmed by the appellate authority by its order dated 21.6.1997. Both the orders have been assailed in the present writ petition.
Sri Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing both the orders, has argued that the petitioner due to reasons, which were beyond his control, had failed to report to his new place of posting. Even he had tried his level best to join his new place of posting but due to non availability of convoy, he failed to report. Learned counsel has also argued that in the departmental proceeding full opportunity was not provided to the petitioner, and as such, order of dismissal as well as order of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7058 of 1998 dt. 18-04-2014
4/5
appellate authority are liable to be set aside.
Sri Raj Ballabh Prasad Yadav, learned Central Government Counsel, has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that in Uniform Forces over staying is considered as a serious misconduct, and as such, the disciplinary authority has rightly passed the order of dismissal after following all the procedures as well as affording full opportunity to the petitioner.
Besides hearing, I have also perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the order of dismissal, it is evident that petitioner at the very initial stage of departmental enquiry had accepted his guilt. In a case where delinquent admits his guilt, in normal course, on that very admission final order could have been passed, however, on perusal of the order of dismissal it is evident that even after accepting guilt, full opportunity was provided and after following all the procedures, the enquiry officer finally submitted its report, which was accepted by the disciplinary authority and order of punishment has been passed. It is evident that the petitioner was given movement order for joining his new place of posting at Uri within the State of Jammu & Kashmir from Vindhya Nager, Madhya Pradesh. Though, he was given 10 days E.L. and 15 days joining time, instead of joining his new place of posting, the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent for a long
Patna High Court CWJC No.7058 of 1998 dt. 18-04-2014
5/5
period, that too, on grounds which were not sustainable in the eye of law. Moreover, in Armed Forces unauthorized absence, as settled, is treated as a serious misconduct. In the present case, since the proceeding had proceeded in accordance with law affording full opportunity to the petitioner, I do not find any ground for interference with the order of dismissal, which has already been affirmed by the appellate authority. I do not find any ground for interference with either of the orders.
The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J)
Praful/-
__ || U || T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the dismissal order and appellate affirmation order passed in the departmental proceedings for unauthorized absence.
Whether full opportunity was provided to the petitioner during the departmental enquiry.
Whether unauthorized absence constitutes serious misconduct warranting dismissal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Krishna Nand Singh
The Union of India
Rakesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
