Ramavtar Meena vs Union Of India And Ors

This special appeal has been filed against the order dated 7.7.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21185/2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner (for short, 'the appellant') has been dismissed.

Facts of the case are that the appellant while working as Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (For short, 'the Force') was served with a charge sheet, wherein two charges were leveled against him : First, the Petitioner-Appellant remained absent from the Hospital where he was undergoing treatment and also consumed liquor during the course of his treatment and misbehaved with the hospital staff; and Second, he remained willfully absent for 199 days, for which the appellant was declared deserter as the same was against discipline and good conduct, expected from a member of a Disciplined Force. After conducting the enquiry and due deliberation, the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 27th July, 2019 dismissed the appellant from service. The appellant filed an appeal against the order dated 27 th July, 2019 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, which also came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 25th September, 2019. He filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 7.7.2020, as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charges leveled against the appellant as at the relevant point of time, he was in depression and was not in a fit state of mind. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set- aside.

The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition found that the appellant appeared before the Disciplinary Authority and admitted his guilt. The learned Single Judge also found that the Enquiry Officer had afforded adequate opportunity to the appellant to file relevant documents in support of his case and also to produce witnesses, but the appellant neither produced documents nor witnesses in support of his case. The Disciplinary  Authority also noted that the appellant had not only consumed liquor during the course of his treatment but also misbehaved with the employees of the hospital, and for this reason, he was shifted from the said hospital and asked to report back, but the appellant did not report back either in the hospital or on duty. Thus, he remained willfully absent from duty for 199 days. The allegations of not following Doctor's advice, consuming liquor, misbehaving with the hospital staff and disobeying the orders of the superiors, were found to be gross misconduct by the Enquiry Authority. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegations leveled against the appellant, the appellate authority also dismissed the appeal.

The learned Single Judge rightly held that the appellant was an employee of a Disciplined Force and being a member of a Disciplined Force, it was unbecoming on his part to consume liquor during the course of treatment and misbehave with the hospital staff. Further, the Appellant also remained willfully absent for 199 days. Those in uniformed services are required to maintain strict discipline and the standards of discipline for such employees are a notch higher than employees working in other departments. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar, (1996) 1 SCC 302 observed as thus:

We are clearly of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in modifying the punishment while concurring with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. The High Court failed to bear in mind that the first respondent was a police constable and was serving in a disciplined force demanding strict adherence to the rules and procedures more than any other department. Having noticed the fact that the first respondent has absented himself from duty without leave on several occasions, we are unable to appreciate the High Court's observation that "his absence from duty would not amount to such a grave charge". Even otherwise on the facts of this case, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the punishment holding that "the punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of the charge" especially when the High Court concurred with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. No case for interference with the punishment is made out."

In this view of the matter, the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges leveled against the appellant, more so when no documents have been produced by the appellant to show that he was under depression and was not in a fit state of mind.

We are in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Learned Single Judge in his order dated 7.7.2020. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no force in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.