Jharkhand High Court
Cyril Toppo, S.I.No.933420010 vs Union Of India & Ors. on 24 September, 2012
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Alok Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 2605 of 2006.
---
Cyril Toppo, S.I. No. 933420010 ... ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India represented through
Secretary, Home Affairs, Department
of Home New Delhi.
2. The Inspector General of C.I.S.F., C.G.O.
Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi.
3. Deputy Inspector General, C.I.S.F.,
B.S.L., Bokaro.
4. The Commandant, C.I.S.F., B.S.L., Bokaro ... ... Respondents.
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dr. S.K. Verma, Advocate.
For the State of Jharkhand : Mr. Faizur Rahman, C.G.C.
---
05. 24.09.2012. The petitioner remained absent from the duties unauthorisedly between 10.1.2002 to 10.3.2002, for 60 days. The petitioner was charge sheeted vide Memo No. 1773 dated 2.4.2002 and explanation was called from the petitioner as to why disciplinary action be not taken against him to remain absent unauthorisedly for 60 days. The petitioner had submitted his explanation saying that his mother was seriously ill, therefore, he could not report on duty for 60 days.
Having perused the explanation, enquiry was directed to be conducted against the petitioner. Before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner had submitted that his mother was seriously ill, therefore, he could not report on duty nor could inform the authorities for grant/extension of leave. The Enquiry Officer had found the petitioner guilty for remaining absent continuously for 60 days without any information and extension of leave.
After considering the enquiry report as well as the explanation furnished by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority was pleased to remove the petitioner from service vide impugned order dated 9.12.2002. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal which too was dismissed vide order dated 29.4.2003. Thereafter the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
Dr. S.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Lal Arya vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi [2004 (4) SCC 560], contends that punishment of removal is shocking and excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Undisputedly, the petitioner himself was not ill. The case of the 2. petitioner is that his mother was seriously ill, therefore, he could not inform the authorities for grant/extention of leave. On being asked, Mr. S.K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has three other brothers. However, the mother of the petitioner was totally dependent on the petitioner.
It is absolutely improbable that the petitioner could not find any time to inform the authorities for extension/grant of leave either by Post or by Telegram. Not only this, the impugned order suggests that the petitioner was declared absconder from duties and the police personnels were sent to his residence to find out and to produce him before the superior officer (s). However, on visiting the residence, the petitioner was found missing from his residence as well. If the petitioner's mother was ill, as suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner, in normal course, he would have remained present in his residence, but he was found missing when the police personnel went to his residence for producing him before the superior officer. Therefore, in his defence/ story set up by petitioner, on the face of it, seems to be an after-thought.
In the case of Bhagwan Lal Arya (Supra), the Constable himself was seriously ill. Therefore, it was noticed by the Apex Court that admittedly since the Constable himself was seriously ill, therefore, absence was for valid and justified reason.
However, the facts of the present case are totally different. None should be permitted to remain absent from the duties unauthorisedly for a long time in a disciplined Force, that too, without valid and justified reasons.
For the reasons discussed hereinabove, petitioner was guilty to remain absent for no valid or reasonable reason. This action amounts to gross indiscipline, therefore, I do not find that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is on the higher side in a disciplined Force. I do not find any justification to interfere with the removal order passed by the disciplinary authorities.
Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Alok Singh, J.) AKS.Cp.2.