Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Raju s/o Bishan Wasnik, was a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) who enlisted on 17-3-2001. He was posted at A/124 Battalion, CRPF in Tripura. On 17-4-2008, he reported sick and was initially treated at the unit, then referred to the Group Centre Hospital, CRPF at Agartala on 24-4-2008, and further to G.B. Pant Government Hospital where he was admitted from 1-5-2008 to 13-5-2008. He availed leave from 21-5-2008 to 12-6-2008. After resuming duty, he again reported sick and was referred to the Group Centre Hospital. The petitioner was absent from duty from 17-4-2008 to 2-7-2008, which was treated as unauthorised absence. A disciplinary inquiry was initiated, and the Disciplinary Authority (Commandant, 124 Battalion) dismissed him from service on 9-7-2009. The appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police was dismissed on 11-7-2011, and the revision to the Inspector General of Police was dismissed on 10-7-2019. The petitioner challenged these orders before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench). The court found that the petitioner had submitted medical certificates to explain his absence, but the Disciplinary Authority did not consider them and proceeded with the inquiry without giving the petitioner a proper opportunity to defend himself. The appellate and revisional authorities also failed to consider the medical ground and the procedural irregularities. The court held that the dismissal was unsustainable as it violated principles of natural justice and was disproportionate to the misconduct. The court quashed the orders of dismissal, appeal, and revision, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of dismissal till reinstatement, within three months.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Unauthorised Absence - CRPF Act, 1949, Section 11(1) - CRPF Rules, 1955, Rule 27 - Petitioner, a CRPF constable, was dismissed for unauthorised absence from 17-4-2008 to 2-7-2008 - Petitioner claimed absence due to illness and submitted medical certificates - Disciplinary Authority did not consider medical evidence and conducted inquiry without giving proper opportunity to defend - Held that the dismissal was unsustainable as the authority failed to apply mind to medical certificates and violated principles of natural justice (Paras 1-10). B) Service Law - Appeal and Revision - CRPF Rules, 1955, Rules 29 and 30 - Appellate and Revisional Authorities confirmed dismissal without considering the medical ground and procedural irregularities - Held that the appellate and revisional orders are also vitiated for non-application of mind (Paras 11-15). C) Service Law - Proportionality of Punishment - CRPF Act, 1949 - Dismissal for absence of about 2.5 months on medical grounds is disproportionate - Held that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dismissal of a CRPF constable for unauthorised absence was valid when the absence was due to medical reasons and the disciplinary proceedings violated principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the orders of dismissal dated 09-07-2009, the appellate order dated 11-07-2011, and the revisional order dated 10-07-2019. Directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of dismissal till reinstatement, within three months.
Law Points
- Natural Justice
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Unauthorised Absence
- Medical Grounds
- Proportionality
- CRPF Act 1949
- CRPF Rules 1955
