1. Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Gayan, learned CGC appearing for all the respondents.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.1993 issued by the respondent no.4, by which he has been imposed the penalty of dismissal
from service w.e.f. 15.10.1993, on account of unauthorized absence of 331 days, from 19.11.1992 to 15.10.1993.
3. The petitioner’s case is that he was enlisted in the Central Reserve Police Force on 05.04.1991 in the 109 Battalion, CRPF. Thereafter he was
transferred to the 79 Battalion, CRPF and reported for duty on 16.07.1992. The petitioner went on leave from 06.11.1992 to 18.11.1992. However,
due to various ailments suffered by him during his leave period, and on the advice of the doctors, he could not re-join his place of posting on time.
Though he requested extension of his leave period, the same was not granted. The petitioner was thereafter declared a deserter in May, 1993 and
subsequently the respondent no.4 issued the impugned order dated 18.12.1993, dismissing the petitioner from service w.e.f. 15.10.1993. Though the
petitioner tried to re-join his service, he was told that he could not re-join his service as he was dismissed from service. Finding no other alternative,
the petitioner approached the Patna High Court vide CWJC No.5972/1996. However, the said case was dismissed vide order dated 31.03.1998 on the
ground that no cause of action had accrued within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal on 11.01.2011
before the Appellate Authority, which was rejected on 03.03.2011. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a writ petition, being WP(C) 2424/2014 before
the Delhi High Court. The same was dismissed vide order dated 21.04.2014 on the ground that no cause of action accrued within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. Thereafter, the petitioner approached Madhya Pradesh High Court vide WP(C) 9236/2014. The same was
dismissed vide order dated 08.07.2014 on the ground that no cause of action accrued within the jurisdiction of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
4. The petitioner has thus approached this Court by way of the present writ petition on 01.03.2016, i.e. after more than 22 years of his dismissal from
service.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not re-join his place of posting after the expiry of his leave period of 13 days
in view of the petitioner suffering from various ailments. He also submits that Medical Certificates annexed to the writ petition proves the fact that the
petitioner was medically unfit to re-join his place of posting. He further submits that as the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard, prior
to being dismissed from service, the impugned order being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. He
also prays for setting aside the order dated 03.03.2011, by which the petitioner’s appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority.
6. Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC submits that the petitioner has not annexed a copy of his appeal petition dated 03.03.2011 in the present writ petition,
which would go to show that the petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard and for taking part in the departmental proceeding. However, the
rejection of the petitioner’s appeal by the Appellate Authority, as reflected in paragraph 5 of the rejection order dated 03.03.2011 shows that the
petitioner had received letters from the Battalion including the letter from the Inquiry Officer. However, he did not give any reply to the said letters.
The learned CGC also submits that the Medical Certificates issued by Dr. A.K. Singh dated 23.02.1993 states that the petitioner was under his
treatment as an out-patient for infective hepatitis from 14.11.1992 till 23.02.1993. The fact that the petitioner could have re-joined his duty on
18.11.1992 is clear as the petitioner was only an out-patient. Further, no communication was made by the appellant to the authority that he was having
some illness due to which he could not join his post.
7. The learned CGC also submits that as the petitioner did not re-join his duty in the roll-call held on 18.11.1992, the petitioner was directed by the OC,
Headquarter/75 Battalion to re-join his duty immediately. The petitioner did not comply with the direction given to him. Thereafter, as a result of Court
of inquiry, warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner on 05.05.1993. However, the petitioner could not be apprehended by the civil police. The
petitioner was thereafter declared as a deserter by the Court of Inquiry on 05.05.1993. She also submits that the Memorandum of Charge under
Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 was delivered to the petitioner at his last known address, but he did not respond to the said communication.
After the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner was concluded, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service
w.e.f. 15.10.1993. The learned CGC submits that the unauthorized absence of the petitioner having been proved, there is no infirmity with the penalty
imposed upon the petitioner. The learned CGC also submits that the record of the departmental proceeding with respect to the petitioner has been
destroyed by fire as on date and as such, no official records can be produced.
8. I have heard the counsels for the parties.
9. The challenge made by the petitioner to his dismissal from service w.e.f. 15.10.1993 and to the rejection of his appeal is reflected in Paras 16, 17,
18 & 19 of the writ petition, which are reproduced below:-
“16. That, the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are arbitrary, unfair and liable to be set aside and quashed as its have
violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
17. That, the petitioner submits the impugned orders violated Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
18. That, the petitioner submits that the impugned orders have violated the principles of natural justice, equity, administrative, fair play and
good conscience.
19. That, the petitioner submits that the impugned Orders were passed without hearing the petitioner.â€
There is no specific or further ground taken by the petitioner against his dismissal from service except for the above four reproduced paragraph Nos.
16 to 19 of the writ petition.
10. The order rejecting the petitioner’s appeal shows that the appeal had been considered by the respondents due to Shri. Mahabal Mishra, M.P
(Lok Sabha), W. Delhi making a request to the CRPF Inspector General for reinstatement of the petitioner’s service. It was in this context that
the respondents informed the concerned M.P that the petitioner had not submitted any appeal against the dismissal, due to which there could be no
consideration for reinstatement of the petitioner.
11. The above being said, the Appellate Authority’s order dated 03.03.2011, rejecting the petitioner’s appeal, indicates that the petitioner was
given an opportunity of being heard in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. However, the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity
provided to him. This is reflected in paragraph 5 of the order dated 03.03.2011 issued by the Appellate Authority and the same is re-produced below :
“Para-5 â€" This argument raised by him is also false that he was not given an opportunity to prove his defense. Whereas he in his own appeal
mentioned about the letter sent by the enquiry officer from which it is clearly in itself then despite of receiving the letters of battalion by him he neither
gave any reply to the aforesaid letters and nor was present in battalion also and even after the order of termination he did not presented any appeal till
17 years from which it is wholly clear that he was absent from duty deliberately and he was not having any strong/valid reason of his absence
otherwise he would not be quite for so many years. Now after 17 years when the case is very old then on the basis of aforesaid baseless/false facts
on misleading the department he only wants to prove the act done by him as legal. Proceedings of declaring him as absconder is wholly in accordance
with rules. If he is so much injured by the allegation of absconder then why he has done such kind of act that he is declared as absconder by
department. Therefore arguments presented by him are wholly false and baseless therefore are denied.â€
12. The petitioner, as can be seen from the fore-going paragraphs, has approached 3 High Courts prior to filing this petition. It is not understood as to
how and why the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court after his case had been dismissed by the Patna High
Court on 31.03.1998. The petitioner would have known as early as 31.03.1998 that the cause of action having arisen in the State of Assam, the writ
petition should have been filed in this Court immediately. Instead, he has filed the present case only in the year 2016, i.e., 22 years after his dismissal
from service.
13. The pleadings read with the annexures also show the lackadaisical attitude of the petitioner in not reporting for duty, as his medical certificates do
not prove his ailments were serious. The unauthorised absence of the petitioner, who is a member of the Armed Force has to be viewed seriously, as
the Apex Court in the case of Central Industrial Security Force & Ors. V. Abrar Ali, 2017 4 SCC 507 has held that indiscipline of a member of the
Armed Force has to be viewed seriously.
14. The period of unauthorized absence of the petitioner is for 331 days from 19.11.1992 to 15.10.1993. The petitioner has annexed 3 Medical
Certificates in the writ petition to explain the reason for his unauthorised absence, which are as follows :
“Rajiv Kumar Singh s/o Sri Rameshwar Singh of village Rampur Ramhar, PO Rampur Ramhar, District-Vaishali, as stated, was under my
treatment as an outpatient for infective hepatitis from 14th November 92 till 23rd February 93. During above mentioned period he was advised to take
rest alongwith medicines. Now he is fit to resume his works from tomorrow onwards.
Sd/-
23.2.93
Dr. A.K. Singh, M.S.
Civil Assistant Surgeon,
P.H.C. JANDAHA
(Vaishali)â€
Illegible
“Certified that Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh of Vill. + PO Rampur Ramhar, PS Jandaha, District Vaishali is suffering from pain in stomach. He is under
my treatment with effect from 24.02.93 to 3.7.93. During treatment he is advise to take complete bed rest.
Sd/-
3.7.93â€
Illegible
“Certified that Rajiv Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Rameshwar Singh, Vill Rampur Ramhar PS Jandaha Dist. Vaishali was under my treatment for illegible
syndrome hepatitis from 04.07.93. Now he is fit to resume his duties after 25.10.93. Total bed rest from 04.7.93 to 25.10.93.
Rajeev Kumar
Sd/-
3.7.93
Samastipurâ€
Illegible
15. A perusal of the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. A.K. Singh shows that the doctor has not mentioned whether the petitioner suffers from
Hepatitis-‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ or ‘E’. Further the petitioner is an out-patient. The Medical Certificate dated 03.07.1993
shows that the petitioner was advised complete bed rest from 24.02.1993 due to stomach pain. The Medical Certificate dated 19.10.1993 shows that
the petitioner was under treatment for Hepatitis and total bed rest from 04.07.1993 to 25.10.1993. Here again there is nothing to show as to which
type of Hepatitis the petitioner was suffering from. It is interesting to note that the petitioner had not submitted any documents showing that he had
undergone any medical examination/tests for his ailments, to give further support to his submission that he was suffering from various ailments. Also,
there is no medicine bill receipts.
16. The petitioner in para 3 of the writ petition states that the petitioner was admitted to hospital and he was under the treatment of Dr. A.K. Singh
from 14.11.1992 to 23.02.1993. However, the Medical Certificate dated 23.02.1993 issued by Dr. A.K. Singh shows that the petitioner was an out-
patient from 14.11.1992 to 23.02.1993 and he was fit to resume his work from 24.02.1993. However, the petitioner did not rejoin his duty. This
apparent contradiction in the petitioner’s appeal petition vis-a-vis the Medical Certificate dated 23.02.1993 shows that the petitioner has not come
to Court with clean hands. Also, the petitioner has not annexed a copy of his appeal petition along with the writ petition. The genuineness of the
Medical Certificate dated 03.02.1993 is also doubtful as it prescribes complete bed rest for more than 4 (four) months on account of stomach pain.
17. In the case of K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors reported in 2008 12 SCC 481, the Apex Court has held that the party who
invokes the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 and Article 226 is supposed to the truthful, frank and open. He cannot be allowed to play
‘hide and seek’ or to ‘pick and choose’ facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would
become impossible. The Apex Court further held that Court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent the abuse of its process to
discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. It further held that if the Court does not reject the
petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an application requires to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing
the process of the Court. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to examine the present case any further on merit.
In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in this case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
