- (1.) In the instant intra-court appeal, the appellant/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') has challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 2nd December, 2013 on his writ application. The appellant, in the writ application, assailed the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 4th December, 1998, passed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e., Commandant, 65 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as 'CRPF', for short), imposing penalty of dismissal from the service. An appeal preferred by the appellant was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 9th April, 1999, confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The revision petition filed by the appellant also did not find favour as the competent authority, rejected the revision petition vide order dated 21st September, 1999; which was also the subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge.
(2.) Shorn off unnecessary details, the essential material facts for appreciation of the challenge to the subject matter are: That the appellant while working as Constable in 65 Battalion, CRPF, was charged for desertion from duty, without permission of the competent authority on 27th April, 1998 and remained absent for 127 days i.e., upto 1st September, 1998. A departmental enquiry was conducted against the appellant in accordance with the rules and procedure prescribed. The Disciplinary Authority taking into consideration the facts, circumstances and materials available on record as well as the finding arrived at during the course of enquiry proceedings, imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service with effect from 4th December, 1998. The appeal and the revision petition preferred, were dismissed confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the pleaded facts of the writ application, has assailed the action of the respondents as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable as well as contrary to the facts and materials available on record. The learned counsel emphatically argued that the appellant was accorded permission to leave the headquarters for five days by the Commandant, in response to his application dated 24th April, 1998, as he was required to attend the court proceedings at Guwahati on 28th April, 1998 and therefore, the charge framed against the appellant for misconduct under Section 11(1) of the Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, is absolutely illegal. Moreover, the period of overstay of 127 days, the alleged misconduct, has been regularized and the period of absence has been treated as dies non, hence, in view of the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Bakshish Singh, 1998 8 SCC 222; the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority terminating the employment of the appellant, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.;