Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Ram Paul vs Union Of India And Others on 18 November, 2020
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
Serial No. 111
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 1549/2020 (O&M)
(Through Video Conferencing)
Ram Paul ....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Sachin Dogra, Advocate
v/s
Union of India and others ....Respondent(s)
Through:
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed impugning the order dated 02.07.2020, vide which, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired. Challenge has also been made to the order dated 07.08.2020, vide which, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner joined the service of Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) on 25.03.1997 as a Barber. He had been performing his duties diligently. Though he was hale and hearty, however, all of a sudden he suffered psychiatric problem. Despite this, he had been discharging his duties, while on medicine. Whenever he applied for leave, after availing the same, he joined his duty back. In case the petitioner 2 WP(C) No. 1549/2020 had not been able to attend his duties on time on account of his medical problem, he was punished from time to time, which included both physical and financial punishments. Punishments also included tough duties, imprisonment and reduction in salary/pay. It is also stated that the petitioner recently suffered acute cervical spondylosis.
3. Challenge to the impugned order has been made on the ground that the petitioner has been compulsorily retired while referring to the various other punishments imposed on him during his service career for which he had already been punished. Hence, he has been punished twice for the same charge.
4. The learned counsel further submitted that in case the petitioner was not fit to remain in service on account of his medical problem, action was required to be taken under Rule 27 of the SSB Rules, 2009 and not Rule 26 thereof, under which he has been compulsorily retired. He has a family to maintain. Hence, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere in the present petition.
6. It is the admitted case of the petitioner himself that ever since he joined way back in the year 1997, he had not been keeping good health. As a result of which, he had been intermittently absenting from duty without authorization. The details when the petitioner overstayed from sanction leave and the period thereof has been detailed out in the order dated 02.07.2020. The same reads as under:
3 WP(C) No. 1549/2020
1. 17.05.2000 to 18.05.2000 - 02 days 19. 31.03.2015 to 09.04.2015 - 10 days
2. 15.08.2001 to 24.08.2001 - 10 days 20. 10.04.2015 - 01 day
3. 18.07.2002 to 30.08.2002 - 44 days 21. 08.09.2015 to 23.10.2015 - 46 days
4. 24.11.2002 to 06.12.2002 -13 days 22. 08.12.2015 to 15.12.2015 - 08 days
5. 08.05.2003 to 28.05.2003 - 21 days 23. 07.03.2016 to 06.04.2016 - 31 days
6. 04.09.2003 - 01 day 24. 02.04.2018 to 22.04.2018 - 21 days
7. 22.06.2004 to 07.07.2004 - 16 days 25. 26.04.2018 to 09.05.2018 - 14 days
8. 10.08.2005 to 20.08.2005 -11 days 26. 10.05.2018 to 19.05.2018 - 10 days
9. 24.09.2009 to 08.10.2008 -15 days 27. 09.08.2018 to 10.08.2018 - 02 days
10. 13.03.2009 to 15.03.2009 - 03 days 28. 11.08.2018 to 13.08.2018 - 03 days
11. 29.03.2012 to 31.03.2012 - 03 days 29. 19.08.2018 to 29.08.2018 - 11 days
12. 01.04.202 - 01 day 30. 02.11.2018 to 08.11.2018 - 07 days
13. 29.05.2012 to 06.06.2012 - 09 days 31. 27.03.2019 to 10.04.2019 - 15 days
14. 12.05.2013 to 19.05.2013 - 08 days 32. 29.05.2019 to 30.06.2019 - 33 days
15. 16.05.2014 to 31.05.2014 - 16 days 33. 24.10.2019 - 01day
16. 28.12.2014 to 01.01.2015 - 05 days 34. 31.01.2020 to 05.02.2020 - 06 days
17. 25.02.2015 to 01.03.2015 - 05 days 35. 06.02.2020 to 08.03.2020 - 32 days
18. 03.03.2015 to 17.03.2015 - 15 days Total OSL- 449 days
7. The aforesaid table shows that on 35 occasions the petitioner had overstayed his sanctioned leave during his service career of about 23 years.
The order dated 02.07.2020 retiring the petitioner compulsorily also records that in the case in hand he had proceeded on casual leave for 03 days on March 20, 2020 but resume his duties only on 11.05.2020 after absenting for 51 days. He had violated the standing instructions and discipline in the force whereby approaching the senior officers directly regarding his transfer. On 10.11.2019 he was given a movement order with one attendant for further medical check-up at Government Medical College, Jammu, as referred by the unit Medical Officer but the petitioner refuse to receive the movement order and escaped the campus without making any entry in the Register. 4 WP(C) No. 1549/2020 Later on a search party found him near Hotel, Prem Palace. Beside this, reference has been made to number of other incidents of gross indiscipline by the petitioner.
8. To be fair to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 02.07.2020 also mentions appreciation and credits earned by him. It was on three occasions. Last one was in the year 2012. The order further records that despite personal hearing on several occasions and his counseling, the petitioner did not improve his conduct. All efforts were made to discipline him to be fit to remain in force, failed as earlier minor punishments imposed on him did not yield any positive result.
9. A show cause notice was issued to him proposing the action to be taken. The same was duly received by him. He did not respond to the same. However, the order impugned records that the following acts of indiscipline were noticed even thereafter:
"a) CT/Barber Ram Paul used threateningly language to personal deployed in unit control room and created nuisance by calling multiple time to almost all unit officers for leave, while he was quarantined as per COVID-19 SOP and that too, when he was already on leave/OSL for 119 days till 27.05.2020 in the current year and that too when officers were busy in operations in Doda Districts and COVID-19 management. CT/Barber Ram Paul was asked to explain above issues vide this office letter No. E-
I/02/Disciplinary/9778452/CT/BBR/RP/19/ 4705 dated 5 WP(C) No. 1549/2020 27.05.2020. Hence, he made offence under section 43 of SSB Act.
(b) CT/Barber Ram Paul proceeded on 01 day C/L on 28.05.2020 and remained absent for 07 days without any permission/intimation. Hence made offence under section 21
(a) of SSB Act."
10. Vide show cause notice dated 27.05.2020, another opportunity was given to the petitioner to respond.
11. The reply given by the petitioner to the notice was also considered and found to be without any merit. The same has been placed on record by him. A perusal thereof shows that the petitioner does not deny the factum of earlier misconduct and the punishments imposed on him. He is only raising an issue regarding his ill health.
12. Rule 26 of Sashastra Seema Bal Rules 2009 (for short 'the 2009 Rules,), under which action has been taken against the petitioner, provides that on being satisfied that an enrolled person is unsuitable to be retained in force, Commanding Officer can take action. However, the person concerned is required to inform the person concerned. Entire adverse material against him has to be furnished with opportunity to respond.
13. In the case in hand, proper procedure has been followed. In fact, the petitioner does not deny that his service record has more punishments than credits, on account of his misconduct. It is the admitted case of the petitioner himself that on number of occasions he was imposed financial punishment besides imprisonment also, but still he did not improve his 6 WP(C) No. 1549/2020 conduct. Such an official is certainly not suitable in a disciplined force, hence, there is no error in the opinion formed by the authorities concerned that the petition is not suitable to remain in service.
14. For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE Jammu 18.11.2020 Paramjeet Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No ANGITA DEVI 2020.11.25 12:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document