- (1.) BY this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order of punishment so as the order passed on appeal.
(2.) IT is a case where petitioner was charge-sheeted for remaining absent. The charge-sheet was sent through registered post though allegation of petitioner is that it was never served on him. The petitioner's defence in regard to the absence is due to his ailment and family circumstances. It is stated that petitioner was operated for Piles followed by further treatment, thus could not attend duties. He could not defend his case before the disciplinary authority in absence of service of charge sheet, thus all the relevant documents showing treatment of petitioner during the intervening period were placed before the competent authority, however, it failed to consider the same thereby imposed punishment of dismissal, which was then converted into punishment of removal in appeal. It is stated that punishment is quite harsh and excessive, thus disproportionate to the charges made against petitioner. Accordingly, it is prayed that impugned order be quashed so as the order passed in appeal. I have considered the submissions made above and perused the record carefully. It is a case where petitioner was charge-sheeted with the allegation of remaining absent from the duty for a period of more than a year. The petitioner's plea is that charge sheet was not served upon him, therefore, he could not defend his case before the Inquiry Officer. The fact aforesaid has been considered by the appellate authority vide Annexure-8, therein plea taken by the petitioner found to be contradictory. In para 3.5 of the said document, it has been dealt with. It is found therein that it was stated that charge sheet was not served upon him and at the same time, plea was taken that he was not sent the list of witnesses along with the charge sheet. The fact further remains that even if charge sheet was not served upon the petitioner, he was given full opportunity of hearing by the competent authority where medical certificate was considered vide Annexure-7. It is found that petitioner remained under treatment in A.K. Hospital, Beawar where he was declared fit on 11.6.2010. He remained absent even thereafter and the Certificates of Dr. Ramesh, Homeopathy Doctor and Dr. Vaidh Krishna Kumar Sharma were submitted. All the documents were taken into consideration by the competent authority but total period of absence being 428 remain unexplained. Looking to the fact aforesaid and the fact that the petitioner is a member of Discipline Force, thus absence from duty cannot be taken casually. Looking to the aforesaid and the fact that after declaring him to be fit on 11.6.2010, petitioner remained absent and aforesaid has been considered by the competent authority. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that absence subsequent to 10.6.2010 was due to family reasons. The reasons have not been explained which prevented the petitioner to report on duty. Looking to overall factual aspect considered by the competent authority, I am not in a position to take a different view while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Question of facts has already been considered and finding recorded is not perverse. So far as punishment of dismissal converted in removal is concerned, I do not find it to be excessive or disproportionate. The view aforesaid is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Versus Ghulam Mohd. Bhat reported in (2005) 13 SCC 228 wherein taking note of the similar charges, it was held that one needs to be disciplined in the Force and absence cannot be ignored casually. Therein also punishment of dismissal was held to be proper. Looking to the aforesaid, I am unable to take a different view. It is lastly contended that Section 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949 provides for lesser punishment. For ready reference, Section 11 is quoted hereunder:- "11. Minor punishments: (1) The Commandant or any other authority or officer as may be prescribed, may, subject to any rules made under this Act award in lieu of or in addition to, suspension or dismissal any one or more of the following punishments to any member of the force whom he considered to be guilty of disobedience, neglect of duty, or remissness in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force, that is to say :- (a) reduction in rank; (b) fine of any amount not exceeding one month's pay and allowances; (c) confinement to quarters, lines or camp for a term not exceeding one month; (d) confinement in the quarter-guard for not more than twenty eight days with or without punishment drill or extra guard, fatigue or other duty; and (e) removal from any office of distinction or special emolument in the force. (2) Any punishment specified in clause (c) or clause (b ) of sub-section (l) may be awarded by any gazetted officer when in command of any detachment of the force away from headquarters, provided he is specially authorized in this behalf by the Commandant. (3) The Assistant Commandant ,a Company Officer or a Subordinate Officer , not being below the rank of Subedar or Inspector commanding a separate detachment or an outpost, or in temporary command at the headquarters of the force, may, without a formal trial, award to any member of the force who is for the time being subject to his authority any one or more of the following punishments for the commission of any petty offence against discipline which is not otherwise provided for in this Act or which is not of a sufficiently serous nature to require prosecution before a Criminal Court that is to say:- (a) confinement for not more that seven days in the quarterguard or such other place as may be considered suitable, with forfeiture of all pay and allowances during its continuance; (b) punishment drill, or extra guard, fatigue or other duty, for not more than thirty days, with or without confinement to quarters, lines,or camp. (4) A Jemadar or Sub-Inspector who is temporarily in command of a detachment or an outpost may in like manner and for the commission of any like offence award to any member of the force for the time being subject to his authority any of the punishment specified in clause (b) of sub-section (3) for not more than fifteen days." Perusal of the provision quoted above does not suggest that instead of imposing punishment of dismissal by removal, lesser punishment has been given. Keeping in mind aforesaid also, no case is made out to cause interference in the matter. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit, hence, it is dismissed. This disposes of stay application also. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. ;