Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1133 (JHR)

Arvind Kahhap v. Union of India

2019-06-14

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Rina Mukherjee, learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the final order dated 16.10.2007 passed by the respondent no.3 whereby the petitioner has been removed from service with immediate effect. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was employed as Constable in Central Industrial Force and was posted at CISF Unit, BCCL Dhanabad Area.12. 4. A charge was served against the petitioner by the concerned respondents stating therein that he was sanctioned 20 days earned leave w.e.f. 7.2.2007 to 26.2.2007 with eligible permission. After expiry of sanctioned leave he was supposed to report this unit on 27.2.2007(F/N) for further duty. But he failed to do so and overstaying leave w.e.f 27.2.2007 till date without intimation/permission of competent authority. The above act on the part of the petitioner amounts to gross misconduct indiscipline, disobedience of lawful orders and dereliction of duty. Inspite of having been awarded of 05 punishments for various misconducts in the past, he failed to correct himself and remained incorrigible. 5. It is stated that an enquiry report is said to have been submitted by the Inquiry Officer in which it is said that the charges were proved against the petitioner. But however, this inquiry report was never given to the petitioner. It is further stated that the impugned order dated 16.10.2007 has been passed by the respondent no.2 whereby the petitioner has been removed from service with immediate effect. 6. It is stated that the petitioner was under the medical treatment of the Doctor inasmuch as he was mentally disturbed and therefore he could not joined the duty in time. It is further stated that the after he became medically fit to join his duty and he has been requesting the authority to allow him to Join but the same went to vain. On this premises, he further submits that the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law and same deserves to be quashed. 7. It is further stated that the after he became medically fit to join his duty and he has been requesting the authority to allow him to Join but the same went to vain. On this premises, he further submits that the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law and same deserves to be quashed. 7. Mrs.Rina Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondents submits that memorandum of charge has been handed over to the petitioner on 7.7.2007,but the petitioner did not submit his written statement with in stipulated time and hence departmental enquiry was ordered under the provisions of Rule-36 of CISF Rules, 2001(Amended Rule 2003) by appointing Inspector as Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer in the case vide letter dated 18.7.2007.The Inquiry Officer sent enquiry notices to the petitioner through Registered post fixing the date of enquiry on 1.8.2007 and 13.8.2007 at the home address of the petitioner. The Preliminary hearing of the case was held on 13.8.2007.Although the petitioner had reported on 13.8.2007 and participated in the Preliminary hearing but he did not join the duty. She submits that Disciplinary Authority returned the case filed to the enquiry officer on 25.8.2007 with direction to conduct departmental enquiry as per laid down CISF Rules and regulations giving all reasonable opportunities to the petitioner for defending his case. Subsequently, the enquiry officer sent enquiry notices through Registered post fixing the date of enquiry on 6.9.2007 and 18.9.2007 to the home address of the petitioner. Despite issuance of these notices, the petitioner did not turn up for attending the enquiry on the scheduled dates, time and place nor he sent any information to the enquiry officer about his inability to attend the enquiry. It is stated that the respondents raise the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of instant writ petition on account of alternative remedy available to the petitioner under rule 54 of CISF Rule 2001(now amended as CISF Rules 2003) by way of appeal and revision, rather the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court. 8. It is stated that the respondents raise the preliminary objection regarding maintainability of instant writ petition on account of alternative remedy available to the petitioner under rule 54 of CISF Rule 2001(now amended as CISF Rules 2003) by way of appeal and revision, rather the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this court finds that charges against the petitioner have been proved and respondents have taken care of principle of the natural justice before passing the impugned order and the petitioner has been punished five times earlier on account of different charges, Inspite of having been awarded of 05 punishments for various misconducts in the past, he failed to correct himself and remained incorrigible. As such no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.