Jharkhand High Court
Prem Pal Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 January, 2015
Equivalent citations: 2015 LAB. I. C. 3838, 2015 (3) AJR 806
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4822 of 2011
Prem Pal Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India & Others ..... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioner - Mr. Jitendra Tripathi
For the Respondents - Mr. Ashok Singh, C.G.C
-----
6/15.1.2015The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.10.2009, whereby he has been removed from service, and also the order dated 31.3.2010 passed by the revisional authority upholding the order dated 21.10.2009.
2. The brief facts, as has been argued on behalf of the petitioner, is that the petitioner had been appointed as Constable under the Central Industrial Security Force in the year 2000. After appointment, the petitioner was discharging his duty to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. He had sought leave on 6.4.2009 for taking rest after excessive duty, as he was not feeling well. He was under the impression that he had been given weekly rest, as such he was sleeping on the terrace in the ailing condition. When he was informed by the Head Constable, namely, B.D.Sharma that he had been deputed for night duty on 6.4.2009, he came to know that he was not given weekly rest. The absence of the petitioner on 6.4.2009 was treated as misconduct and accordingly the memorandum of charge was served upon him and he was removed from service. It has been submitted that the punishment of removal from service is very harsh and not commensurate with the charges. The petitioner had brought this fact to the notice of the revisional authority by filing appropriate application, but the revisional authority also had not considered the same and upheld the order passed by the disciplinary authority.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the punishment of removal from service is very harsh and that cannot be given only for absence of one day. If any misconduct had been committed by the petitioner, under the Conduct and Discipline Rules, there are other punishments also, that should have been imposed upon the petitioner. The enquiry officer has not found the said absence as wilful absence and in absence of such finding, the impugned order of removal is not tenable in the eye of law.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner had committed misconduct by absenting himself from duty on 6.4.2009. When he was informed about his duty by the Head Constable, he started abusing the higher officials as also the members of the Force posted in the Office of the Inspector. He had also given threatening to assault them by bullet. The petitioner had been inflicted with five punishments prior to this incidence, but even thereafter, he had failed to reform himself and reiterated this incidence. Hence, there is no question of giving any sympathy to the petitioner. Since the petitioner is a member of a Disciplined Force, he cannot be expected to abuse the higher officials and remain absent even for a single day without permission of the higher authority.
5. Heard the parties, perused the record.
6. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally for three charges: (i) He was found absent from duty from 6.4.2009 to 7.4.2009, while he was deputed at the main gate of Koyla Nagar, without giving any information to the competent authority. (ii) On 7.4.2009 the petitioner had abused the higher officials and the members of the Force posted in the Office of the Inspector. (iii) The petitioner had already been inflicted with five punishments for different activities of indiscipline.
After serving the copy of the memorandum of charge, the petitioner was directed to appear before the enquiry officer and was provided an opportunity of defending himself. The petitioner had denied the charge with respect to abusing the higher officials.
7. The enquiry officer recorded the statements of the witnesses. Ext.1 is the assignment of duty to the petitioner on 6.4.2009 by PW-1, but the petitioner had not presented himself on duty in terms thereof. PW-2 has stated in his deposition that on search, it was found that the petitioner was sleeping in the terrace of the barrack. When PW-2 had informed the petitioner about his duty, the petitioner had told him that today is his rest day and he will not perform duty assigned to him. PW-3 has stated that when the petitioner had not presented himself on duty on 6.4.2009, another Constable, namely, Jai Prakash was deputed after making entry in the diary. With respect to Charge No.2, PW-3 has stated that on 7.4.2009 at about 8.45 A.M, he saw the petitioner abusing the higher officials and the members of the Force posted in the Office of the Inspector and also giving threatening to assault them by bullet. PWs - 1, 4, 6 & 7 have also corroborated the statement of the PW-3.
8. On the basis of the evidence of PWs - 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7 and Exts. 1, 2 & 3, the enquiry officer came to the finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are found to be proved.
9. After conclusion of enquiry, the enquiry officer forwarded the enquiry report to the disciplinary authority. On the basis of the findings given by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority found that the charges levelled against the petitioner are very serious, as the petitioner, being a member of a Disciplined Force, is not expected to remain absent from duty without any information to the higher authority and abuse the higher officials and also taking into consideration earlier instances of punishments, imposed punishment of removal from service in exercise of power under Rule 32(1) Schedule (1) and Rule 34 of the C.I.S.F Rules, 2001.
10. Against the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority taking the plea of his ill health due to which he could not be able to present himself on duty. But this plea of the petitioner was not accepted by the appellate authority in view of the fact that if the petitioner was suffering from any ailment, he should have given this information to the Control Room and instead of sleeping in the terrace, he should have gone to hostel or before any doctor for treatment, but the petitioner had not done so and only in order to mislead the authorities, the plea of illness has been taken. With respect to Charge No.2, the petitioner had taken plea that he had not used any abusive language against the higher officials, but the appellate authority did not accept the said plea in view of the evidence of PWs- 1, 2, 3, 4 & 6. Considering all aspects of the matter and also earlier five instances of punishments inflicted upon the petitioner, the appellate authority rejected the petitioner's appeal.
11. The petitioner had preferred revision. The revisional authority also after considering all aspects of the matter and nature of allegation and taking into account the fact that within short span of time seven punishments has been inflicted, has rejected the revision.
12. The petitioner has challenged the order of removal mainly on the ground that for one day's absence, the punishment of removal cannot be imposed.
13. The petitioner, being a member of a Disciplined Force, is expected to discharge his duty with utmost sincerity and satisfaction to the authorities concerned. The petitioner was assigned night duty on 6.4.2009, which was well within his knowledge. If he had fallen ill, it was his duty to inform the higher authority of the Control Room regarding his inability in discharging his duty so that the authority may assign duty to other Constable, but the petitioner in a very casual way, without giving any information to the higher authorities of the Control Room, had went in terrace and slept. This conduct of the petitioner cannot be treated simply, even though the absence is for a day, as the petitioner had shown his resistance in discharging his duty. Hence, there is no question of showing any sympathy to the petitioner by imposing lesser punishment.
14. Other allegation of using abusive language against the higher authorities and the members of the Office of the Inspector is also serious. The witnesses have corroborated the said allegation in their deposition.
15. This Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot disturb the concurrent findings of the authorities. Although this Court has got power to judicially review the order of punishment, if it shocks conscience, but in view of the nature of allegations and misconduct committed by the petitioner, the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy regarding the quantum of punishment.
16. In exactly similar situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ex-Constable Ramvir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2009) 3 SCC 97 has held that the punishment of dismissal inflicted upon the appellant is not disproportionate considering the fact that the judicial review of the matter is not supposed to substitute its own opinion on reappraisal of the evidence in exercise of power of judicial review. However, the Court can interfere with the punishment imposed when it is found to be totally irrational or outrageous defiance of logic. This limited scope of judicial review is temporary and interference is required only when the punishment is shockingly disproportionate.
17. In the case in hand, in view of seriousness of allegations and misconduct committed by the petitioner, the power of judicial review cannot be applied and moreover, the fact finding given by three consecutive authorities based upon the material on record, cannot be interfered with, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha. reported in (2009) 8 SCC 310 at Paragraph 15 :
"15. The legal position is well settled that the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. The Court does not sit in judgment on merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the inquiry officer and examine the findings recorded by the inquiry officer as a Court of appeal and reach its own conclusions."
18. In that view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.
19. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
S.K (SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J)