Saurajit Paul vs Union Of India And Ors

[1] This petition is filed by an ex-employee of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF, for short) challenging his order of dismissal for long unauthorised absence from duty.

[2] Brief facts are as under :

The petitioner was appointed as a Constable under CRPF. He proceeded on sanctioned leave for 60(sixty) days from 11.05.2009 to 09.07.2009. According to the petitioner, while travelling back from his home town to the place of posting, he fell seriously ill. Also on account of road blockages, he could not report for duty upon completion of the leave period. He had made such an intimation to the department. He, thereafter, reached his house and undertook treatment at a local hospital and thereafter at G.B.P Hospital, Agartala. He, thereafter, went for further treatment to Chennai. He took treatment at Apollo Hospital, Chennai upto 21.08.2009. From there he returned home and continued to take treatment at the local hospital. According to him, he had also communicated the department these developments, despite which the department initiated and conducted an ex parte inquiry passing the order of dismissal from service.

[3] The case of the department on the other hand is that the petitioner remained on unauthorised leave for a long period of time. Several communications and reminders were sent to the petitioner for joining the duty without any response from the petitioner. A charge sheet was, therefore, issued to him and duly dispatched for service. The petitioner did not respond to the notices of the Inquiry Officer and eventually a departmental inquiry was conducted ex parte. The disciplinary authority took into account all aspects of the matter and eventually passed the order of dismissal from service on 10.01.2011. Till then, the petitioner did not report for duty. Even the appeal was filed by the petitioner after long delay in the year 2015 which was considered by the appellate authority and dismissed after passing a speaking order. Revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by a speaking order.

[4] In the background of such facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the department failed to take into account the serious illness of the petitioner. The inquiry was conducted ex parte without giving opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. The appellate authority did not give personal hearing and thereby breached the principles of natural justice. He submitted that the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority were not supported by any evidence and the entire inquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. This Court should therefore set aside the order of dismissal. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on following decisions :

(i) In case of Moni Shankar Vrs. Union of India and another : reported in (2008) 3 SCC 484.

(ii) In case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vrs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya : reported in (2011) 4 SCC 584.

[5] On the other hand, learned counsel for the department opposed the petition contending that the petitioner had not reported for duty for nearly one and half years till the order of dismissal was passed against him. He was a member of an armed force and had thus committed serious misconduct. Even the appeal was filed after several years of delay, clearly indicating total lack of seriousness on part of the petitioner to discharge his duties. He submitted that full opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself in the departmental inquiry. The petitioner, however, did not participate in such inquiry. The petitioner did not establish the factum of serious illness which would prevent him from joining duty for such a long period of time. They had not produced documents and medical certificates from Government hospitals and Apollo Hospital at Chennai from where he claimed to have taken treatment. He pointed out that the appellate as well as revisional authorities have passed detailed speaking orders.

[6] The material on record would suggest that the petitioner had availed of 60(sixty) days of leave between 11.05.2009 to 09.07.2009. He had to resume duty upon completion of leave period on 10.07.2009. He did not do so and despite communications from the department when he did not join duty for a long time, a charge sheet was issued to him levelling two charges. Charge Article-1 was that he had remained absent from duty without permission from 10.07.2009 till the date of the charge sheet. Charge Article-2 was that he had also not supplied necessary documents of having treatment at G.B.P Hospital, Agartala. The department had communicated this charge sheet to the petitioner giving him an opportunity to participate in the inquiry. The petitioner did not participate. The Inquiry Officer, therefore, conducted and completed the inquiry ex parte. The inquiry report was considered by the disciplinary authority. In the impugned order of dismissal dated 10.01.2011, the disciplinary authority noted that the petitioner had fetched a petition dated 25.09.2010 stating that he was under full bed rest and unable to perform his duties. In response thereof, it was conveyed by the department that the petitioner was able to travel to Chennai for treatment but claimed the requirement of full bed rest. He noted that the Inquiry officer had followed the procedure. A registered letter was written to the home address of the petitioner. Several other communications were also dispatched. Several opportunities were granted to the petitioner despite which he did not participate in the inquiry. He noted that the Inquiry Officer examined relevant witnesses and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had remained continuously absent without leave from 10.07.2009. At one stage, the petitioner had cited the reason of the illness of his wife for not being able to resume duties. It was also noted that an arrest warrant was issued against the petitioner which was served on the member of the family of the petitioner despite which he did not attend the duties. It was noted that for over 18 months he was absent without leave. He, therefore, concluded that the petitioner had committed a misconduct and he was unfit to continue in a disciplined force. He, therefore, passed the order of dismissal.

[7] Against the said order of dismissal, the petitioner had preferred an appeal rather belatedly. The order of dismissal was passed on 10.01.2011 whereas appeal was filed on 24.11.2015. In the appeal, the petitioner contended that due to serious financial problems and his illness he could not undertake the journey from his residence to the place of posting and, therefore, could not challenge the order of dismissal. Quite apart from gross and inordinate delay in filing the appeal, the appellate authority considered the appeal on merits and dismissed the same. He met with each submission of the petitioner made in appeal. He came to the conclusion that the averments and evidence of prolonged illness of the petitioner were inconsistent. The petitioner had not produced any medical documents of having taken treatment at various places.

[8] The petitioner further preferred revision petition which was also dismissed by the revisional authority.

[9] It can thus be seen that the petitioner had remained absent without leave for over 18 months. His ground of serious illness preventing him from resuming duties was not backed by necessary material and not believed by the departmental authorities. There were large gaps in documents covering the period of absence. The petitioner has also not stated as to what was the nature of such serious illness which prevented him from resuming duty for such a long period. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that he was suffering from hepatitis. It is difficult to imagine that such an ailment was not cured for nearly 18 months. The petitioner's absence and his culpability do not end with passing of the order of dismissal. The dismissal order was passed on 10.01.2011. He preferred appeal against such order only on 24.11.2015. The petitioner would also have to account for his inaction for over 4(four) years after the order of dismissal was passed.

[10] The findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority during the course of inquiry are pure findings of facts duly supported by evidence on record. No interference can be made in exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly when such findings were approved by appellate and revisional authorities. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any breach of principles of natural justice in conduct of the inquiry. His contention that the appellate authority did not grant personal hearing and, therefore, committed an error cannot be accepted. Personal hearing is not necessarily a part of requirement of hearing unless the statutory provisions so provide. As an appellate authority the onus was to consider the appeal and all grounds raised by the petitioner in appeal, however, requirement of personal hearing cannot be insisted upon. No disciplinary rule is pointed out to me which would require such personal hearing.

[11] In the result, I find no merits in the petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.