For long unauthorized absence from duty the punishment of dismissal of personnel cannot be held to be per se disproportionate : Delhi High Court
Every employee has the right to avail leave for various reasons, however such leave requires to within the authorised period, anything that exceeds it is required to be submitted for further approval. This was held in the judgment passed by a two-judge bench comprising HON’BLE JUSTICES MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN and MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, in the matter of MOHD. RAFI V. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL ,CRPF &amp; ORS (W.P.(C) 9854/2021 &amp; CM APPLs. 30337-338/2021), dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed a petition challenging orders dated 11th June, 2019 issued by the Respondent No. 1 and order dated 08th August, 2017 issued by the Respondent No. 2, whereby the Petitioner was removed from service. Petitioner also seeks reinstatement of service with full back wages and other consequential benefits. The counsel for the petitioner stated that the Petitioner was not served with any notice asking him to re-join his duty or regarding initiation of departmental proceedings for the alleged misconduct of over staying on sanctioned leave. He further stated that the punishment of removal from service for alleged misconduct of continuous absence from duty with effect from 06th June, 2016 awarded under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 is highly disproportionate. He stated that the Petitioner over stayed his leave due to his mental condition and subsequent illness caused due to the matrimonial cases instituted by the Petitioner’s wife against him before the family court, Moradabad and the removal of the Petitioner’s minor children from his custody. The Court presents the view that the petitioner, who is a member of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), was obliged to report back to duty after expiry of the leave. Respondents/CRPF was under no obligation in law to keep on issuing notices to invite the petitioner to re-join his service. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has violated his solemn duty and responsibility to report back on time.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI S 54 W.P.(C) 9854 2021 & CM APPLs. 30337 338 2021 MOHD. RAFI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kaushal Yadav Advocate with Mr. Shafik Ahmed and Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra Advocates. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CRPF ORS & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: D.S.Mehandru Advocate with Mr. Akshat Singh Advocate. Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh DC Law Date of Decision:08th September 2021 HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA JUDGMENT MANMOHAN J:The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing. Present writ petition has been filed challenging t he order dat ed 11 th June 2019 issued by the Respondent No. 1 an d order dat ed 08 th Au gust 2017 issued by the Respondent No. 2 whereby the Petitioner was rem oved from service. Petitioner also seeks reinstatement of service wit h fu ll back wages and other consequential benefits. W.P.(C) 9854 2021 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that t he Petitioner was n ot served with any notice asking him to rejoin his duty or regardin g in itiation of departmental proceedings for the alleged misconduct of over st aying on sanctioned leave. He further states that t he pu nishment of rem oval from service for alleged misconduct of continuous absence from duty with effect from 06th June 2016 awarded under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act 1949 is highly disproportionate. He states that the Petitioner over st ayed h is leave due to his mental condition and subsequent illness caused due to the matrimonial cases instituted by the Petitioner’s wife against him before t he family court Moradabad and the removal of the Petitioner’s minor children from his custody. This Court is of the view that the petitioner who is a member of Central Armed Police Forceswas obliged to report back t o du ty after expiry of the leave. Respondents CRPF was under no obligation in law to keep on issuing notices to invite the petitioner to re join his service. Consequently this Court is of the view that the petitioner h as violated h is solemn duty and responsibility to report back on time. The factum of matrimonial dispute and illness could have been agitated before the Inquiry Officer. In any event the petitioner sh ould h ave either reported back on time or sought extension of his leave which h e did not do in the present case. For long u nauthorised absence from du ty t he punishment of dismissal of a CAPF personnel cannot be h eld t o be per se This matter calls for no interference in writ jurisdiction. Consequently the writ petition along with pending applications is dismissed. disproportionate. W.P.(C) 9854 2021 7. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e mail. MANMOHAN J SEPTEMBER 8 2021 TS NAVIN CHAWLA J W.P.(C) 9854 2021 