1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 180 of 2013 ------- Rajiv Ranjan, son of Sri Dilip Kumar Singh, resident of Village- Koshdihra, PO: Chandchoura, PS: Magadh Medical, Distict: Gaya (Bihar) ... Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, PO & PS: Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3.Commandant, IRB-3, Chatra, P.O, P.S & District: Chatra. .... Respondents ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Devesh Krishna, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikash Kumar, JC to A.A.G ------ C.A.V on 28.07.2016 Delivered on 27/10/2016 Per Pramath Patnaik, J.: In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing memo dated 22.08.2011, whereby petitioner has been dismissed from services and for quashing appellate order dated 22.12.2011 whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority.
2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in IRB at Chatra at 02.07.2008 and he was sent for training for 11 months at Border Security Force, Punjab. After completion of said training, in 2009, the petitioner joined in Khelgaon, Ranchi and thereafter in August, 2010, he was sent for training in Tripura. It has been averred that during training at Tripura 17.08.2010 on getting news about the serious illness of his brother, the petitioner 2 left the training camp without sanction of leave to attend his brother at Rajeshwari Hospital at Patna, as it has been said by the Instructor of Training Camp that there is no chance of sanction of leave. It has further been averred that during treatment his brother died on 27.09.2010 and after doing last rituals he reported his duty on 13.10.2010 with a request to sanction leave for the period of absence on the ground of death of his brother. Thereafter, vide office order no. 917/2010 the petitioner was placed under suspension and charge was framed against the petitioner on the allegation of absence of 57 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in course of enquiry the petitioner also produced the medical documents and even the death certificate of his brother in support of the stand taken in his explanation for the period of alleged absence but that has not been taken into consideration sympathetically and on the basis enquiry report, the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from services has been imposed upon the petitioner, against which, the petitioner preferred appeal, but it resulted into same fate.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that before imposition of impugned punishment, the enquiry report has not been served upon the petitioner and furthermore no second show cause has been served upon the petitioner, which vitiates the entire proceeding. Besides that, the impugned punishment is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct in the facts and circumstances of the case. Under the circumstances, the disciplinary authority is not justified in 3 passing the order of dismissal from services in exercise of his powers conferred under Rule 668(ka) of the Police Manual.
4. On the issue of unauthorized absence, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India & Anr as reported in (2012) 3 SCC178and Chairman-cum-Managing Director, CIL & Anr Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors as reported in (2009) 15 SCC620also the order passed in W.P. (S) No.3769 of 2010 dated 18.11.2014; W.P. (S) No. 231 of 2006 dated 30.07.2010.
5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State submitted that the petitioner while sent on special training at Tripura absconded from there on 17.08.2010 without any leave. It has further been submitted that the respondent had sent letter at the home address of the petitioner to join his duty but the petitioner did not turn up and came after 57 days and hence, explanation was called for from him, which on being found unsatisfactory, departmental proceeding was initiated, which culminated to imposition of impugned punishment. It has further been submitted on scrutiny of the prescription submitted by petitioner, the enquiry officer found that the father’s name of the patient did not match with the father’s name of the petitioner, who is stated to be brother of the petitioner and in enquiy it came to surface that patient was the son of cousin uncle of the petitioner and not his own brother and he on the pretext of his illness tried to justify his absence. 4 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the impugned order of dismissal 22.08.2011 and appellate order dated 22.12.2011 do not warrant interference by this Court for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (a).Admittedly, due to unauthorized absence from the training, a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, who was a probationer at that time, and the matter was enquired into by the enquiry officer and after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned punishment order has been passed and thereafter, appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been rejected by passing a detailed order. Therefore, there appears to be no procedural irregularity from the initiation of departmental proceeding till its culmination so as to warrant interference by this Court. (b).Moreover, members of the uniformed forces cannot remain absent themselves on frivolous pleas, having regard to the nature of duties entrusted to them. Such indiscipline, if it goes unpunished, will greatly affect the discipline of the forces. In such forces desertion is a serious matter. Member of uniformed forces who overstays his leave by a few days must be able to give a satisfactory explanation and in the case at hand the petitioner, who was on special jungle training left the training without any intimation. In such case of dismissal from the force is a justified disciplinary action and cannot be described as disproportionate to the 5 misconduct alleged. This view has been illuminatively discussed in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vrs. Datta Linga Toshatwad as reported in (2005) 13 SCC709 (c).On perusal of record, it appears that there is a concurrent finding in the orders of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot reappraise the evidence and cannot disturb the facts and finding given by the disciplinary authority as has been held by the Apex Court in case of State of U.P. and others Vrs. Raj Kishore Yadav and Another as reported in (2006) 5 SCC673at paragraph 4 held as follows:- “ …....... It is a settled law that the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed.“ (d).In the case at hand, it appears that the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable as those judgments were rendered in different context. The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has limited scope of interference so as to appraise order passed by the disciplinary as well as appellate authority concerned.
7. On the cumulative effect of aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement and as logical sequitur to the discussion 6 made in the foregoing paragraphs, impugned order of dismissal 22.08.2011 and appellate order dated 22.12.2011 do not warrant any interference by this Court.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. (Pramath Patnaik, J.) Alankar/-