Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1462 (JHR)

H. K. Pathak, Ex-constable v. The Union Of India

2019-08-22

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2019
ORDER 1. Heard Mr. B.K. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Central Industrial Security Force. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 30.09.2006 whereby the petitioner has been removed from the service. 3. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was employed as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force. As the marriage of the petitioner''s daughter was going to be performed, the petitioner applied for leave from 11.05.2005 to 24.05.2005, which was granted by the authority of Central Industrial Security Force, Dhanbad on 07.05.2005. Due to certain exigency in the family, the petitioner could not join the duty on 24.05.2005. On 25.05.2005 he informed through telephone to the commandant (Administration) and also informed through the Fax for extension of his leave. He also made an application for extension of his leave for further 20 days before the Deputy Inspector General, Bokaro. In view of the leave application dated 25.05.2005, the respondents issued office orders dated 08.06.2005, 25.06.2005, 18.07.2005 and 09.08.2005 whereby, the petitioner was directed to present before the Unit immediately otherwise a departmental proceeding will be initiated against him. Accordingly, a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner on 10.10.2005. The petitioner submitted his show cause on 20.10.2005. In view of Rule 36 of the CISF Rules 2000, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. 4. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that although in the enquiry proceeding the petitioner participated but the facts of his absence has not been properly appreciated by the enquiry officer and he submitted the report. On the basis of report, the disciplinary authority has passed the order whereby, he has directed for removal of the petitioner from service but it was also observed in that order the period of absence with effect from 25.05.2005 to 21.08.2005 will be regularized separately. The petitioner filed the appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority has also affirmed the order of disciplinary authority. The petitioner filed revision before the revisional authority who also rejected the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved with those orders, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 5. Mr. The petitioner filed the appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority has also affirmed the order of disciplinary authority. The petitioner filed revision before the revisional authority who also rejected the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved with those orders, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 5. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submits that as in the impugned order there is observation that the absence of duty with effect from 25.05.2005 to 21.08.2005 will be regularized separately and in that view of the matter a direction may be issued to the respondents to the effect that the said benefit be extended to the petitioner immediately. 6. As per contra, Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-CISF submits that full opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and he has participated in the enquiry proceeding. The authorities concerned after looking into the conduct of the petitioner has passed the impugned order which is in accordance with law. The petitioner was a member of a disciplined force and no leniency can be shown to a person who was a member of disciplined force. He submits that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds that the authorities concerned have passed the order in accordance with law and it requires no interference to be made out. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, in view of observation in the impugned order to the fact that the period of absence with effect from 25.05.2005 to 21.08.2005 will be regularized separately, it is desirable that the authorities concerned will look into that observation and if the benefit of that has not been extended to the petitioner, the same will be extended to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the light of that observation in the impugned order they will also examine the past service of the petitioner can be counted for other benefits or not. 9. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands dismissed.