Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court

Mohd. Rafi vs Deputy Inspector General ,Crpf& Ors & ... on 8 September, 2021

Author: Manmohan

Bench: Manmohan, Navin Chawla

                          $~S-54
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          +     W.P.(C) 9854/2021 & CM APPLs. 30337-338/2021

                                MOHD. RAFI                                             ..... Petitioner
                                                   Through:     Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate with
                                                                Mr. Shafik Ahmed and Mr. Nandlal
                                                                Kumar Mishra, Advocates.

                                                   Versus

                                DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL ,CRPF
                                & ORS & ORS.                             ..... Respondents

Through: D.S.Mehandru, Advocate with Mr. Akshat Singh, Advocate.

Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh , DC Law CRPF.

                          %                                   Date of Decision:08th September, 2021

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

                                                    J U D G ME N T

                          MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging t he order dat ed 11 th June, 2019 issued by the Respondent No. 1 an d order dat ed 08 th Au gust, 2017 issued by the Respondent No. 2, whereby the Petitioner was rem oved from service. Petitioner also seeks reinstatement of service wit h fu ll back wages and other consequential benefits.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that t he Petitioner was n ot served with any notice asking him to rejoin his duty or regardin g in itiation of departmental proceedings for the alleged misconduct of over st aying on sanctioned leave. He further states that t he pu nishment of rem oval from service for alleged misconduct of continuous absence from duty with effect from 06th June, 2016 awarded under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 is highly disproportionate. He states that the Petitioner over st ayed h is leave due to his mental condition and subsequent illness caused due to the matrimonial cases instituted by the Petitioner's wife against him before t he family court, Moradabad and the removal of the Petitioner's minor children from his custody.

4. This Court is of the view that the petitioner, who is a member of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), was obliged to report back t o du ty after expiry of the leave. Respondents/CRPF was under no obligation in law to keep on issuing notices to invite the petitioner to re-join his service. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the petitioner h as violated h is solemn duty and responsibility to report back on time.

5. The factum of matrimonial dispute and illness could have been agitated before the Inquiry Officer. In any event the petitioner sh ould h ave either reported back on time or sought extension of his leave-- which h e did not do in the present case. For long u nauthorised absence from du ty t he punishment of dismissal of a CAPF personnel cannot be h eld t o be per se disproportionate.

6. This matter calls for no interference in writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition along with pending applications is dismissed.

7. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.

MANMOHAN, J NAVIN CHAWLA, J SEPTEMBER 8, 2021/TS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KRISHNA BHOJ W.P.(C) 9854/2021 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:09.09.2021 19:12:23