Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) THE petitioner -appellant, who was appointed as Constable (Bigular) in the Central Reserve Police Force ('CRPF') but was ultimately awarded the punishment of removal from service for absenteeism, has preferred this intra -Court Appeal against the order dated 7.1.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 1106 (SS) of 2011 whereby, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition after finding no merit in challenge to the orders passed in the departmental proceedings.
(2.) THE basic ground of challenge to the departmental proceedings by the petitioner -appellant had been that when an order had already been passed declaring him a 'deserter', the respondents were neither justified nor authorized to take any disciplinary action against him; and hence, no such order of removal could have been passed in the disciplinary proceedings. The relevant background aspects of the matter had been as follows: The petitioner -appellant was appointed in CRPF as Constable (Bigular) on 16.9.2003. He applied for earned leave that was granted for the period 12.03.2008 to 10.04.2008. However, he failed to report on duty after expiry of the period of sanctioned leave. It appears from the material placed on record that the respondents, under the communications dated 18.04.2008, 20.04.2008 and 03.05.2008, asked and directed the petitioner to report on duty at the earliest but he failed to comply; and even an arrest warrant issued on 23.05.2008 remained unexecuted. Ultimately, a Court of Inquiry was ordered on 25.06.2008 and after its report, the Commandant passed an order on 23.05.2009 declaring the petitioner as deserter from the service in terms of Rule 31(c) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 ['the Rules of 1955'] which have been framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers vested in it under Section 18 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 ['the Act of 1949']. The said order dated 23.05.2009, while declaring the appellant as deserter, further provided in terms of Rule 31 ibid. that the appellant would not cease to be the member of Force and whenever he would report or surrender, shall be treated to be guilty of the offence described in Section 10(m) of the Act 1949 and would also be liable to be punished under Section 11(1) of the said Act.
(3.) AFTER having declared the appellant as deserter, the department issued a charge sheet to him under the memorandum dated 02.06.2009, essentially on the allegation that he had misconducted himself for not reporting on duty after availing 30 days' earned leave from 12.03.2008 to 10.04.2008 and thus, he was absent from duty without any leave or permission of the appropriate authority w.e.f. 11.04.2008. The appellant submitted a representation dated 12.06.2009 suggesting that he was undergoing treatment in Guru Tej Bahadur Hospital at Delhi for stammering and had furnished Medical Certificates to the authorities concerned; and that he was still under treatment and would report on being declared fit. In this communication, the appellant also suggested his temporary changed address at Ghaziabad.;