PRADHUMAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing Mr. S. Deb, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Biswas, the learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents, it is obvious that the only question which falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the penalty of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner by the respon-. dent No. 5 (Commandant, 13 Bn., C.R.P.C., Agartala) for overstaying his leave by 28 days calls for the interference of this Court?

(2.) Unfolding his arguments, Mr. S. Deb, the learned senior counsel, strenuously submits that when the period of his overstay of leave was only for 28 days, the penalty of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner is grossly excessive and disproportionate. It is true, contends the learned senior counsel, the legislature has conferred the power to impose penalty only upon the disciplinary authority and that such a power is a discretionary one but then such power must be exercised reasonably and not in the manner as exercised by the respondent No. 5 as in the instant case, which is so outrageous as to shock the conscience of this Court. Inviting my attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the Union of India Vs. Giriraj Sharma, 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 755, he submits that the ratio of this case is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. On the other hand, the Learned Assistant SG contends that once the petitioner was held to be guilty of the charge lewelled against him, what penalty should be imposed upon the petitioner is exclusively the prerogative of the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority, having imposed the penalty impugned herein after duly considering the facts and circumstances, cannot be questioned on the quantum of penalty so imposed. He relies heavily on N. Rajarathinem Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1996) 10 SCC 371 to sup- part his submission.

(3.) To appreciate the rival submissions, a brief history of the material facts may be adverted to. The petitioner, prior to his dismissal from service, was serving as a Constable under the respondent No. 5. In the year 1993, on his application, the petitioner was granted 60 days earned leave against ninety days applied for w.e.f. 29.12.1994 to 26.02.1995. The petitioner claimed that he suffered from jaundice from 10.02.1995 to 07.04.1995 and was undergoing treatment from the Medical Officer, Additional Public Health Centre, Bariarpur(Munger), a medical certificate whereof is annexed to l:his writ petition at Annexure-3. This promoted him to apply for extension of his earned leave for another twenty days, i.e., w.e.f. 27.02.1995 to 18.03.1995, which was apparently granted by the respondent No. 5 vide Annexure-7. According to the petitioner, as he had not fully recovered from his illness, he again made another application for extension of his leave by thirty days. His application was obviously not granted this time. When he reported for duty on 15.04.1995, he was unceremoniously arrested by executing the warrant of arrest executed by the respondent No. 5 in Case No. 02 of 1995. He was charged with the offence punishable under Section 10(m) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 ('CRPF' Act for short), i.e. for not reporting for duty after expiry of his leave. He was thereafter tried by the respondent No.5 purportedly acting as Chief Judicial Magistrate and was convicted and sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment of thirty days.