- (1.) HEARD Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for respondents. Petitioner -Veer Singh was a constable (Constable no. 941183029) in Central Reserve Police Force and was at the relevant time posted at C.R.P.F., Group Centre Rampur. A charge -memo dated 06.02.2007 enumerating three charges was issued to him. Charge no.1 alleged that while he was posted at Rampur on 06.12.2006, he deliberately flouted to obey orders of Deputy Commandant (Administration), Group Centre, C.R.P.F. Rampur, was thus guilty of Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. Charge no.2 alleged that petitioner, on 31.12.2006, absconded from the Camp, but returned on 27.01.2007, which conduct was unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force. Charge no.3 alleged that on 06.12.2006 he assaulted a watchman Raj Karan and absconded from the Camp on 07.12.2006, which conduct too was unbecoming of a member of a disciplined organisation. The charge -memo along with supporting documents and list of witnesses was served upon petitioner and one Sri Jamal Khan, Deputy Commandant was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. Petitioner was offered assistance of defence help to which he declined. On 14.07.2007, statement of petitioner was recorded in which he feigned his ignorance. The departmental witnesses were examined in presence of petitioner and a right of cross -examination was extended to petitioner. After the statements of departmental witnesses was recorded on 21.07.2007, the delinquent again appeared before the Enquiry Officer and recorded his statement and also submitted list of defence witnesses and documents. Thereafter enquiry proceedings took place on 08.09.2007, wherein he reiterated that in the light of his application dated 07.09.2007, he proposes to examine two defence witnesses namely Hawaldar Pratap Singh, 7 Battalion and Hawaldar Ghanshyam Ram, 62 Battalion. On being requested to get their statements recorded, petitioner declined to get the same recorded. Thereafter, enquiry officer finding the petitioner guilty on Charges no.1 and 2 submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 15.09.2007. The petitioner was put to a show -cause notice on 28.09.2007 to which he replied on 09.10.2007. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority finding the petitioner guilty on Charges no. 1 and 2 proceeded to dismiss his services on 23.10.2007. The petitioner preferred an unsuccessful appeal on 01.07.2008. Challenging the orders dated 23.10.2007 and 01.07.2008, petitioner has filed the present petition. The finding on Charge No.1 was that even though petitioner in his statement recorded on 07.09.2007 alleged that as he had applied some ointment in his neck, he was unwell and that the doctor attached with the Group Centre too had advised him bed -rest, he could not carry out the instructions of his superior to call R.P. Hawaldar Puran Singh. The Enquiry Officer, after examining medical certificates filed by petitioner found that he was not advised any bed -rest on 06.12.2006, which establishes that the defence of petitioner was false. On Charge No.2 Enquiry Officer opined that petitioner in his reply dated 07.09.2007 had taken a stand that in view of domestic discord, he had submitted an application on 15.12.2006 requesting that no deterrent action be taken against him. It was alleged that he had also submitted an application on 29.12.2006 requesting the authorities to discharge him within 24 hours in case, no orders are passed thereon, he would leave the Camp on 31.12.2006. The Enquiry Officer after examining leave application and discharge application found that both the applications are devoid of any date. Further Enquiry Officer also found from testimony of Constable No. 951180254, Constable G.D. Jitendra Singh that both the applications were filed by petitioner on the same day, i.e. on 30.12.2006, the contention of petitioner that application for 30 days' leave was filed on 15.12.2006 and that for discharge on 29.12.2006 does not appear to be correct. Thus, the Enquiry Officer was of the view that before any orders could be passed on the said application, conduct of petitioner in absconding from the Camp on 31.12.2006 was resorted only to exert pressure upon the authorities to accede to his request for discharge.
(2.) THE sole contention on behalf of petitioner is that as petitioner submitted two application; one for grant of 30 days' leave and the other for discharge, thus in the event of rejection of request for leave orders ought to have been passed on discharge.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondents submits that the approach of petitioner was not only casual, but also unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force. Thus once charges were established after due enquiry, punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the charges. Petitioner was a constable in C.R.P.F., which is a disciplined force. It goes without saying that the conduct and behaviour of a constable in a disciplined force is not only expected to be exemplary, but it must display sincerity and devotion to duty. The superior officers cannot function at the whims and dictates of the sub -ordinates. The petitioner submitted two applications on 30.12.2006; one for grant of 30 days' earned -leave and the second for discharge, in case leave was not sanctioned. This is borne out from the evidence of Constable / G.D. Jitendra Singh, witness of the department. In all fairness, petitioner ought to have waited for some reasonable period for the competent authorities to pass an appropriate order on its leave application. Leave is not granted as a matter of right. It is a privilege and that too in a disciplined organisation like C.R.P.F., wherein multiple factors have to be taken into consideration, before orders are passed on the leave application. Thus, the conduct of petitioner in submitting the alleged applications on 30.12.2006 and then absconding within 24 hours on 31.12.2006, but to return on 27.01.2007 displays a complete recalcitrant conduct and behaviour to which no exception can be made. To put a condition to the leave application that in case, no orders are passed within 24 hours, service of petitioner be deemed to be discharged, is not only insubordination but also unbecoming of a conduct of a member of a disciplined organisation. Further the authorities also found that no alleged application for leave was ever filed by petitioner on 06.12.2006 and 15.12.2006. The request for leave and for discharge have to be considered in accordance with law by the competent authorities. Considerations for both these eventualities are different and one cannot be made dependant on the other, else it may affect the discipline of the organization which is of paramount importance.;