Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), was removed from service by an order dated 7th May 2012 issued by the Commandant, CISF RTC Arakkonam, for unauthorized absence from duty. The petitioner had availed 10 days of sanctioned earned leave from 18th August 2011 but did not report back for duty after its expiry on 28th August 2011. He neither sought further leave nor communicated any reason for his absence. The disciplinary authority issued multiple call-up notices on 3rd September 2011, 12th September 2011, 27th September 2011, and 10th/15th October 2011, informing him of his failure to report for duty from 29th August 2011. Despite these notices, the petitioner remained absent. Consequently, a disciplinary inquiry was initiated, and the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service, which was affirmed by the appellate authority (Deputy Inspector General, CISF RTC Arakkonam) on 8th March 2018. The petitioner challenged these orders in the present writ petition. The court considered whether the punishment of removal was disproportionate to the misconduct. The court noted that the petitioner had been absent without any leave or communication for over 8 months, which is a serious misconduct in a disciplined force like CISF. The court held that the punishment of removal was not disproportionate and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Proportionality of Punishment - Unauthorized Absence - Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, Section 11, Rule 36 of CISF Rules, 2001 - Petitioner, a CISF constable, remained absent without leave for over 8 months despite multiple call-up notices. Disciplinary authority imposed removal from service, affirmed by appellate authority. Court held that the punishment of removal is not disproportionate given the gravity of misconduct in a disciplined force. Petition dismissed. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the punishment of removal from service for unauthorized absence of over 8 months is disproportionate to the misconduct.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of removal dated 7th May 2012 and the appellate order dated 8th March 2018 are upheld.
Law Points
- Disciplinary proceedings
- proportionality of punishment
- unauthorized absence
- Central Industrial Security Force Act
- 1968
- Section 11
- Rule 36 of CISF Rules
- 2001
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (06) 22
Writ Petition No. 12947 of 2018
Dipankar Datta, CJ, M. S. Karnik, J.
Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud a/w Mr. Vinod Sangvikar a/w Mr. Yogesh Morbale a/w Mr. Pranit Kulkarni i/by Mr. Vinod P. Sangvikar for petitioner; Mr. Yogeshwar S. Bhate a/w Mr. Prasenjit Khosla for respondents/UoI.
Mr. Rahul Hiraman Birhade
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging removal from service for unauthorized absence.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of removal order dated 7th May 2012 and appellate order dated 8th March 2018, and reinstatement with consequential benefits.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was removed from service for unauthorized absence of over 8 months; he challenged the punishment as disproportionate.
Previous Decisions
Disciplinary authority (Commandant, CISF RTC Arakkonam) removed petitioner from service on 7th May 2012; appellate authority (Deputy Inspector General, CISF RTC Arakkonam) affirmed the order on 8th March 2018.
Issues
Whether the punishment of removal from service for unauthorized absence of over 8 months is disproportionate to the misconduct.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the punishment of removal is disproportionate to the misconduct of unauthorized absence.
Respondents argued that unauthorized absence for over 8 months in a disciplined force like CISF is a serious misconduct warranting removal.
Ratio Decidendi
In a disciplined force like CISF, unauthorized absence for a prolonged period (over 8 months) without any communication or leave is a grave misconduct. The punishment of removal from service is not disproportionate to such misconduct.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner was a member of the Central Industrial Security Force... While holding the post of a constable, the petitioner has been removed from service by an order dated 7th May 2012...
It is not in dispute that the petitioner after availing 10 (ten) days of sanctioned earned leave from 18th August 2011, did not report back for duty. He did not also seek further leave or communicate the reason that disabled him from reporting for duty.
Procedural History
Petitioner, a CISF constable, was removed from service by disciplinary authority on 7th May 2012 for unauthorized absence. Appeal to Deputy Inspector General, CISF RTC Arakkonam was dismissed on 8th March 2018. Petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 12947 of 2018 before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968: Section 11
- CISF Rules, 2001: Rule 36
