Jay Kumar Paswan vs The Union of India and Others

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India and its officials. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.5.2007 passed by the Commandant 95th Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Anantnag (Jammu & Kashmir) whereby he has been dismissed from service. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Inspector General, C.R.P.F., Muzaffarpur, whereby his appeal against the said order of dismissal has been dismissed. The order dated 23.1.2009 dismissing the petitioner''s revision application passed by the Inspector General, C.R.P.F., Bihar Sector, Patna is also under challenge. An order passed by the Director General, C.R.P.F. on a memorial dated 23.7.2010 has also been challenged in this present writ application.

The petitioner at the relevant point of time was posted as Constable/GD C.R.P.F. in Jammu and Kashmir. On the charge that he overstayed unauthorizedly for a period of 283 days, after availing his casual leave of fifteen days, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. The petitioner was declared a deserter by the C.R.P.F. vide order dated 8.2.2007, as he had absented himself unauthorizedly from 21.7.2006.

From the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, it appears that petitioner tried to explain the absence on the ground of his illness. The said defence of the petitioner was not found acceptable and the enquiry officer accordingly found the petitioner guilty of the charge of overstayal for the period of 283 days.

From the order of the appellate authority, it appears that after considering all the materials brought on record by the petitioner in support of his defence, he came to a conclusion that petitioner''s explanation was not acceptable. Similarly, the revisional authority also, after considering the martial on record dismissed the revision petition.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority did not take into account in its proper perspective the defence taken by the petitioner in course of the disciplinary proceeding and ignored the documents/medical prescriptions showing the petitioner''s illness during the period the petitioner overstayed after availing sanctioned casual leave.

He submits that even if the charge is said to be proved, the authorities below ought to have imposed upon the petitioner a lesser punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case. He submits that on the charge of overstayal, the extreme punishment of dismissal should not have been imposed upon the petitioner.

This is to be noted that learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any procedural lapse in conducting departmental enquiry. His submission that on the ground of charge of overstayal of 283 days after availing the sanctioned casual leave, punishment of dismissal should not have been imposed, cannot be accepted as this petitioner was a member of disciplined Para Military Force and was posted at a sensitive place. Indisputably, he overstayed for the period of 283 days unauthorizedly. The compelling circumstance, in which the petitioner is said to have remained absent, has been considered by the authorities. Certain medical prescriptions/report have been brought on record by way of annexures in the present writ application to suggest that the petitioner was getting treated by a private doctor and he was advised complete bed rest. Such documents do not inspire much confidence.

I do not find punishment to be disproportionate to the gravity of charge levelled and proved against the petitioner. This application is accordingly dismissed.