Sunil Ambwani, Raj Mani Chauhan - (1.) HEARD Shri Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S. C. Misra, Additional Standing Counsel has appeared for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed on 3.1.1998 as a regular member of Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.) as Assistant Commandant. During the training period, he was posted to various Battalions of the C.R.P.F. While he was posted with 28th Battalion C.R.P.F. deployed at Hallo Majra, Chandigarh in the year 2001, he applied for and was granted 29 days earned leave w.e.f. 8.9.2001 to 6.10.2001 with permission to avail 7.10.2001 being Sunday by the Commandant of the Battalion and was due to rejoin duties on 8.10.2001. It is alleged that the petitioner could not rejoin on 8.10.2001, as his wife was pregnant and was seriously ill. He sent an application on 4.10.2001 requesting for 15 days extension of the leave on the ground of serious illness of his wife. His request however was not accepted by the Commandant and that he was directed to rejoin duty forthwith by telegram dated 9.10.2001. THE petitioner rejoined on his own on 6.1.2003. THE details of the extension of leave, sought by the petitioner from time to time and action taken thereon detailed in the order of the Union Public Service Commission dated 29.1.2006, are given below in the chart : C.O's letter dated leave sought Reason for extension of leave Status of action taken by office 1. 4.10.2001 15 days. Serious illness of wife. THE C.O. was informed vide telegram dated 8.10.01 leave not extended. Report forthwith 2. 15.10.2001. Wife's condition critical due to complication in pregnancy. THE C.O. was directed to report forthwith for duty due to his detailment for Parade contingent for 62nd C.R.P.F. Anniversary Parade vide Regd. Letter dated 9.10.2001 and telegram dated 10.10.2001 and 13.10.2001. 3. 26.10.2001 Extension of leave for another 15 days. Wife's condition not improving due to complication in pregnancy. THE C.O. was again directed vide regd. letter dt. 18.10.2001 to report for duty immediately. THE C.O. was informed vide letter dated 24.10.2001 that his request was rejected and he was directed to report for duty immediately. 4. 5.11.2001 and 5.12.2001 Extension of leave for another one month and further one month Wife's condition is continuing with same complication accompanied by severe domestic problem. THE C.O. was informed vide letter dated 13.11.2001, 5.12.2001, 10.12.2001 and 5.1.2002 that his request was rejected and the C.O. was advised to report for duty immediately. 5.11.2001 5.12.2002, 5.3.2002 and ** 3.4.2002 Extension of leave for one month and further for 30 days. @ Charges levelled against him are absolutely false and fictitious having wrong notion against him. * Wife's condition persist with same complication accompanied by severe domestic problem. ** His wife gave birth to a cesarean child whose conditions are stated to be critical due to post surgical complications. THE C.O. was once again directed vide letter dated 10.4.2002 to report for duty immediately otherwise disciplinary action would be initiated against him. 6.5.2002 Extension of leave for another 30 days. Wife's condition persists with post surgical complications whose conditions are stated to be critical. His presence with her is must. THE C.O. was once again directed vide letters dated 16.5.2002 and 24.5.2002 and telegram dated 25.5.2002 to report for duty immediately. 7. 5.6.2002 and 7.7.2002 Extension of leave for another 30 days and further for 30 days. Wife's condition persists with post surgical complications accompanied by jaundice whose condition is stated to be critical. His presence with her is must. Besides he is facing acute domestic problem. THE C.O. was once again directed vide registered mail dated 8.11.2002 to report for duty on or before 30.11.2002 otherwise disciplinary action will be initiated against him. For the purposes of classification, control and appeal, the C.R.P.F. personnel are regulated by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short the C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965). An enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 14 of C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965 was initiated by serving upon him a Memorandum dated 30.8.2004 with an article of charge, alleging that while he was posted and functioning as Assistant Commandant, 28th Bn. C.R.P.F. deployed at Hallo Majra, Chandigarh during the year 2001, committed a serious misconduct in that having proceeded on 29 days earned leave with effect from 8.9.2001 to 6.10.2001 with permission to avail 7.10.2001 being Sunday, failed to report back for duty on due date, i.e., 8.10.2001 and continued to remain absent from duties till his rejoining at his own on 6.1.2003 without any sanction/permission of the competent authority and despite repeated directions to rejoin duty forthwith. Thus, the said Shri Virendra Kumar, A.C. failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant thereby violated the provisions contained in Rule 3 (1) (ii) and (iii) of C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
(3.) A statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of article of charge was appended to the Memorandum dated 30.8.2004. Shri Surendra Choudhary, Dy. Commandant, C.R.P.F. was appointed as the Presiding Officer by the Additional D.I.G.P. (Pers. I) on 25.10.2004. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 17.9.2004 stating that during his leave period his wife was seriously ill, due to complicated pregnancy. His presence became a compulsion as she required his personal care. He could not leave her alone in that situation and requested for extension of leave. He further submitted in paragraph 5 of his written statement that during this period he had been facing severe domestic problems and that his parents at Allahabad could not take care of his wife in that condition as they were too old and that there was no one else to look after her in that traumatic condition of pregnancy. The doctors had advised her to take complete bed rest and not to take journey. They stayed at his in-laws house. His father-in-law is a Government servant and was posted out of station and brother-in-law was engaged in his hectic business schedule. His mother-in-law was suffering with severe backache problems. In these circumstances there was no body to look after his wife. She gave birth to a child by cesarean operation and was too weak and required to be looked after with extreme care as both mother and the baby were in critical stage of health. The condition of his wife further deteriorated due to an attack of jaundice which relapsed after sometimes. Under these circumstances he was under extreme stress and strain and was not able to decide as the matter was that of life and death. However, he kept on requesting the Commandant for considering his case for grant of leave. A preliminary hearing was held on 15.1.2005 by the Enquiry Officer in which the petitioner admitted that he had received the memorandum of charge, and had understood the same. On question No. 3, he pleaded guilty and on question No. 4 the petitioner answered : 'No Sir, I do not want to add anything at this stage, however, I will adduce oral and written evidence during the course of enquiry. Sir, I wish to have Shri L. N. Mishra, Deputy Commandant of 101 Bn. R.A.F. as my Defence Assistant during the D.E.'.;