- (1.) R. B. Misra, J. Heard Sri Surendra Prasad learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri N. P. Shukla learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 17-3-1994 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police Special Range C. R. P. F. , New Delhi by which the applicant was dismissed from service on the charge of unauthorised absence from duty. The appeal as well as revision filed against the dismissal order were rejected by the department authority. The petitioner was appointed as Constable on 29-6-1985 and the petitioner joined the post on 9-7- 1985, thereafter, the petitioner was sent for training. After training the petitioner was posted in 5th Battalion, New Delhi and he was directed to join at Firozpur Unit and from there he was transferred to 113 Battalion Hyderabad and he was discharging his duties at Hyderabad with satisfaction of the authorities. While posted in Hyderabad, he was implicated in a criminal case No. 116 of 1992 registered under Section 392 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Koirauna, District Varanasi and case was reported to Deputy Inspector General of Police, Special Range C. R. P. F. , on that basis he was placed under suspension on 15-3-1993, however the final report was submitted by police department in criminal case No. 116 of 1992. On 12-4-1993 the petitioner took leave for 15 days with permission to leave station for Bhadohi at his native place. The petitioner applied for extension of his leave telegraphically. The petitioner was on leave till 28-4-1993, which was extended for 10 days upto 9-5-1993. It is alleged that on 4-11-1993, charge-sheet was framed, charging the petitioner of an act of misconduct under Section 11 (1) of C. R. P. F. Act, 1994 as he failed to report on the Head Quarter on the expiry of permission period granted to him with effect from 13-4-1993 to 27-4-1993. The petitioner was also charged for 'disobedience' under Section 11 (1) of C. R. P. F. Act, 1994 for unauthorised absence. As contended on behalf of the petitioner that no notice or information of charge- sheet or with regard to disciplinary proceeding was ever served to the petitioner and ultimately by order dated 17-4-1994, the petitioner was dismissed from service (Annexure-II to the writ petition ). It appears the petitioner while on permitted leave at his village was attached by disease Arthritis and he approached to M. L. N. Hospital, Allahabad on 23- 4-1993 and was under the treatment of Specialist Orthopaedic Surgeon Dr. D. K. Srivastava and was advised for complete bedrest. The petitioner fully recovered from the illness on 28-7-1995 (Annexure-I to the writ petition ). It appears on 26-4-1993, the petitioner sent an application for extension of leave on the ground of illness through telegram, which was not considered and after recovering from illness, the petitioner wanted to report for duty alongwith medical certificate dated 28-7-1995, when he came to know that he was dismissed from service on 17-4- 1994.
(3.) THE petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority which was rejected on 16-6-1996 (Annexure-III to the writ petition ). Revision preferred before the Director General of C. R. P. F. , New Delhi was also rejected on 26-10-1997 (Annexure-IV to the writ petition ). It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that order for dismissal was passed ex-parte without any notice or information to the petitioner. The appellate authority as well as revisional authority too have not given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before rejecting his claim apart from challenging the impugned punishment of dismissal on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice the petitioner is challenging punishment on the ground that punishment of measure penalty of dismissal of the petitioner, is dis-proportionate to the charges. It has also been submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were made ex-parte and no opportunity has been given to the petitioner before the order for dismissal was passed. Even the appellate authority as well as the revisional authorities have not afforded apportunity to the petitioner before passing the revisional order. As contended on behalf of the petitioner that the punishment of dismissal is harsh and disproportional to the gravity of the charges and there is no finding that the conduct of the petitioner was undesirable.;