1. The respondent/writ petitioner was a CISF Constable. He fixed his daughter''s marriage on April 13, 1988. He did not have much leave to his
credit. He prayed for twenty days half-pay leave and twenty-five days earned leave with effect from April 4, 1988. He also applied for loan of Rs.
4,000/�- from his Provident Fund Account. The loan was not sanctioned, so as the leave as asked for. He was granted only fifteen days earned
leave as he did not have any further leave to his credit. He immediately proceeded to his native place for his daughter''s marriage. He tried his level
best for the financial resource; he could not do it within the scheduled date. He had to defer his daughter''s marriage and ultimately, his daughter
was married, but by that time he had already overstayed. When he came back, he was served with a charge-sheet. It further transpires that he was
subsequently granted loan of Rs. 2,000/-. The appellant however, contends that he withdrew his application for loan and as such it was not correct
to say that his loan was not sanctioned. He was put under suspension. He was proceeded in an enquiry proceeding and ultimately he suffered the
order of removal from service. He preferred an appeal where he was unsuccessful. His revisional application was also dismissed. Challenging the
order of removal he approached the learned Single Judge by filing the writ petition.
2. On analysis of the pleadings and the documents annexed thereto His Lordship (Arun Kumar Mitra, J.) came to a finding that the authority was
biased as against the respondent. His Lordship placed reliance on the fact that the chargesheet itself would manifest the element of bias as the
authority by the chargesheet informed the delinquent that they would be holding an enquiry. His Lordship observed that when a chargesheet was
issued, opportunity should have been given to the delinquent to explain his conduct and offer his version to the charges brought against him. Only
upon consideration of the charges and reply offered there for, the authority would have to come to a conclusion whether they would proceed
further or drop the proceeding at that stage. When the authority themselves in the chargesheet itself informed the delinquent that they would
proceed against him in an enquiry proceeding, the element of bias was apparent.
3. His Lordship further held that the proceeding was vitiated by illegality as there had been violation of the principle of natural justice. Copies of the
documents as asked for, were not given at the appropriate stage so that the delinquent could effectively deal with the charges and defend himself in
the said proceeding. His Lordship also held that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate. His Lordship ultimately, quashed the order of
removal, however, denied back wages for nineteen years when the delinquent was out of service.
4. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal.
5. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated October 5, 2001. The appeal was preferred on
April 17, 2002. The Division Bench stayed the order quashing the order of removal and directed filing of paper book. The appeal was dismissed
for default on December 15, 2006. The restoration application was filed on March 7, 2008, which was allowed by us on July 28, 2009. It now
appears that the authority in the meantime, decided to allow the delinquent to join the service and passed an order accordingly on December 1,
2008. The delinquent accordingly joined his post in terms of the order passed on December 1, 2008 and thereafter, was superannuated on July
31, 2009 after attainment of natural age of superannuation.
6. We have heard Mr. Uttam Majumder, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. R.N. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the delinquent.
7. Mr. Majumder in support of his appeal has drawn our attention to various documents to show that the order of suspension was issued
completely on different context and had nothing to do with the disciplinary proceeding which the delinquent suffered. Hence, the observation of the
learned Single Judge on that score is devoid of merit. He contends that the delinquent misbehaved with senior official in intoxicated manner on the
foundation day of CISF which compelled the authority to suspend him. Such order of suspension had nothing to do with the disciplinary
proceeding under challenge.
8. On the issue of violation of natural justice Mr. Majumder contends that the observation of the learned Single Judge on that score is also without
any basis as the copies of the documents were furnished by the authority and the allegations were unfounded.
9. Mr. Majumder further contends that His Lordship was not correct to observe that the appellate authority or the revisional authority did not
assign any reason while dismissing the appeal or the revisional application''s the case may be.
10. Mr. Majumder lastly contends that CISF being a disciplined paramilitary force must maintain strict discipline amongst the Force. Overstay is an
act of indiscipline, which cannot be ignored. In this regard, he has relied upon the Apex Court decision in the case of Mithilesh Singh Vs. Union of
India (UOI) and Others,
11. Mr. Majumder lastly contends that in case this Court is not inclined to upset the decision of His Lordship, it should modify the order of
punishment by replacing the order of removal by order of compulsory retirement which would provide all opportunities to the delinquent to obtain
pecuniary benefit on superannuation.
12. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. We have carefully perused the judgment and order of His Lordship.
13. We would be failing in our duty if we do not record our feeling after reading the judgment and order impugned herein. The judgment is well
versed, so well written coupled with emotion and sentiment, that too without stepping out from the boundary of law.
14. We fully agree with Mr. Majumder that CISF being a disciplined force must maintain discipline in strict manner. We are little bit rigid on
identical charges when faced by any paramilitary staff as the question of safety and security of our country would be at stake, if these cases are
dealt leniently, even then we do not find any scope of interference with the decision of His Lordship.
15. A poor Constable prayed for sanction of loan of poultry sum of Rs. 4,000/-, that too from his Provident Fund Account for his daughter''s
marriage which was fixed on April 13, 1988. He prayed for adequate leave for the said purpose. He knew that he did not have sufficient leave to
his credit. He prayed for half-pay leaves. The authority, in our view, should have been little magnanimous on that score. He was neither paid the
money at the right time nor sanctioned adequate leave.
16. Mr. Majumder has relied upon the Apex Court decision in the case of Mithilesh Singh (supra), wherein the delinquent surrendered his arms
and ammunition to the Guard Commander telling that he was proceeding home. The Guard Commander asked him not to go without permission,
but he disobeyed the order and left his duty: Considering such backdrop, the Apex Court observed, removal from service was appropriate.
17. In the instant case, the delinquent proceeded on authorized leave, He had to overstay. For that he had already suffered immense punishment by
losing nineteen years'' wages. We do not find any further punishment which could be inflicted upon him.
18. We abundantly make it clear that the delinquent must get all his financial benefit as a consequence of the judgment and order impugned in this
appeal.
19. The appeal thus fails and is hereby dismissed.
20. There would be no order as to costs.
