'Clear Case Of Misconduct': Rajasthan High Court Denies Relief To CRPF Constable Removed From Service For Unauthorized Absence

A division bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice Sudesh Bansal, observed,

"In our view the petitioner has not made out any case for interference. We may recall, the petitioner was engaged as constable of CRPF which is a disciplined force. He remained unauthorisedly absent without sanctioned leave or communication to the department for about one year. This was a clear case of misconduct."

Essentially, the appellant-original petitioner was engaged as a constable-driver in CRPF. He was granted leave from 21.08.2013 to 19.09.2013. He, however. did not report for duty on completion of leave period. He remained unauthorisedly absent without sanction of leave from 20.09.2013 onwards, without any intimation to the department. The departmental enquiry was therefore initiated against him. He did not participate in the enquiry. Final order was passed by the disciplinary authority on 10.09.2014 imposing punishment of dismissal.

Later, the appellate authority converted the order of dismissal to removal from service. A writ petition challenging the said orders was dismissed by a Single Bench, following which the present appeal was filed.

The counsel for the appellant-original petitioner submitted that looking at the long clean service of the petitioner, extreme punishment of removal from service should not have been imposed. He submitted that the petitioner was suffering from illness on account of which he could not resume his duties. He lastly contended that none of the communications of the department reached to him because the petitioner was not living at his residence. He also placed reliance on multiple Supreme Court judgments.

Placing reliance on B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India [AIR 1996 SC 484], the court observed that the case of punishment essentially rests with the disciplinary authority. The Court would not interfere unless the punishment shocks the conscience of the Court.

After perusal of Section 10 and 11 of the Act, the court opined that the competent authority could impose a punishment of imprisonment for the act of remaining absent without leave, under Section 10 and the punishment of dismissal or removal from service can also be considered under section 11. The court observed that these punishments are thus within the competence of the said authority.

The court noted that the misconduct of not reporting for duty for over one year without sanctioned leave was established during the course of enquiry against the petitioner. The court added that the petitioner has not produced any evidence of his suffering from such illness which prevented him from resuming his duty and which prevented him from appearing in the departmental enquiry and any rate from communicating to the department his inability to appear.

The court also observed that all communications were made by the department at his residential address, despite which the petitioner did not appear before the disciplinary authority. The petitioner cannot complain that the enquiry was conducted ex-parte, added the court.

Adv. M.S. Raghav appeared for the appellant-original petitioner.

Case Title: No. 970250021 Sep/driver Ramraj Meena v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 65

Click Here To Read/Download Order