CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.11280 OF 1997 ------------ IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE-226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ------------ SHRI NATH RAM, S/o Late Sheochand Ram, R/o Village- Piro, P.S.-Piro, District- Bhojpur. ------Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through the Director General of Central Industrial Security Force, Lodipur, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India. 3. The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi. 4. The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force Ministry of Home Affairs, DAE Zonal H.Qr. P.O.-ECIL, Hyderabad. 5. The Deputy Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Uranium Corporation of India, Jadugodda, District- Singhbhum (Bihar). 6. Group Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Gr. H.Qr. Bailey Road, Jalalpur, Dr. Ranjan Pd. Yadav Path, P.O.-Danapur, Patna. ------Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s S.K.Agrawal Shanti Pratap, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. ------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ---------------- Navaniti Prasad Singh, J The petitioner was a member of the Central Industrial Security Forces. He joined service on 10-08-1980 and after training he was posted at various places. In 1990 he was posted at Jadugodda in the State of Bihar and was attached to Uranium Corporation of India Limited at Jadugodda in the District of Singhbhum. It is petitioner’s case that he was attached with Fire Brigade there on emergency duty, from there he was temporarily shifted by orders on 8th July, 1994 to Bokaro Thermal Power Station, Bokaro from where he was recalled back to Jadugodda and placed at Uranium Corporation of India Limited at Jadugodda. On 28-12-1994 he was regularly transferred and posted to C.I.S.F. Unit at Vishakhapattanam Steel Plant, 2 Vishakhapattanam in the State of Andhra Pradesh where he had to report by 31.12.1994(afternoon). He was directed to collect his movement order/railway warrant for the needful. In the transfer order, which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition, it was clearly stated that if he does not do so, then he would be deemed to be relieved by 31.12.1994. Petitioner’s case is that being attached to Fire Brigade Unit, he was not relieved from there and as such he could not comply with the transfer order dated 28-12-1994. He thus continued at the Fire Brigade Station of Uranium Corporation of India Limited at Jadugodda, District-Singhbhum. Petitioner’s case is that caught in the predicament, he challenged the transfer order dated 28-12-1994 before this court by a writ petition being CWJC No. 3803/96 which was dismissed by order dated 3.11.1997, which order is annexed as Annexure-4. In response to the court’s query as to where he was in between 1.1.1995, after he was relieved pursuant to transfer order dated 28-12-1994, till the time in the year 1996 when he filed the writ petition, the Learned counsel for the petitioner was not clear but the learned counsel for the C.I.S.F. drew attention of this court to Annexure -5 a representation of the petitioner himself dated 3.01.1995 addressed to the Director General, C.I.S.F. in which he has clearly stated that having not been relieved and salary having been stopped, he had no option but to abandon station and proceed home (native village). It is further clear from Annexure-6 that departmental proceedings were initiated on 23rd of May, 1995 long before petitioner’s writ petition challenging transfer, and charges as framed were issued to him at his home address of District- Bhojpur, which petitioner does not deny having received. The charges were under two heads. Firstly, he had neglected and 3 refused to obey transfer order and then he refused to join his transferred place of posting. It is not in dispute that petitioner was granted full opportunity to represent his case. His only defence was that he was not relived from Fire Brigade Unit and not paid his salary. Therefore, he could not submit clearance order nor could he take movement order/railway warrant etc. to proceed to Vishakhapattanam and it is in that situation he not only abandoned station but without leave proceeded to his native village. It was, therefore, requested that petitioner had not deliberately violated transfer orders and should not be proceeded against him. At this stage I may notice that on one hand petitioner’s specific case is that he was not being relieved from Fire Brigade Post to comply with transfer order, on the other hand he pleads that he then immediately left station and went home to Buxar. How could that be possible unless he had been relieved and if he had not been relieved then clearly he had defiantly abandoned station and left without permission. Pursuant to the enquiry and the proceedings petitioner was ordered to be dismissed from service for rank insubordination which order has not been interfered with in appeal and hence, the writ petition. Petitioner has challenged the order on the ground, firstly that he was denied adequate opportunity to defend his case. He ought to have been granted opportunity of hearing and not having been done so the order is in violation of principle of natural justice and must be set aside. His second submission is that even otherwise the punishment as imposed is highly excessive and disproportionate to the delinquency alleged. Having considered the matter, I am not persuaded to interfere with the matter and the writ petition must fail. To the 4 first ground on attack on the ground of natural justice I may only note that principles of natural justice is not a unruly horse nor of a bull in a china shop. The applicability and the extent thereof depends on case to case and facts situation. Here petitioner was duly noticed and charges were communicated. Petitioner’s only defence was that on 31.12.1994 he was not being relieved and as such could not obey his transfer order, and could not collect movement order or the railway warrant and as such he could not join at Vishakhapattanam. There were no controversial facts which were required to be adjudicated by evidence on record. The transfer order which was issued and received by petitioner on 28- 12-1994 clearly stipulated that he should immediately deposit clearance and collect movement order and railway warrant of proceeding he joined Vishakhapattanam. As per his own saying he waited till 31.12.1994 and allegedly proceeded only on 31.12.1994 after he had been relieved by that transfer order. He had to give his joining at Vishakhapattanam by 31.12.1994 in the afternoon, he was still at Jadugodda in the Singhbhum district of Bihar at that time. What more did the petitioner, wanted to bring on record. There is no fact in order to disclose. Thus a personal hearing would have been an empty formality for the petitioner was granted opportunity to represent which he did. Thus in my view, petitioner cannot plead violation of principle of natural justice. Now I come to the question of sentence being disproportionate. In my view there is nothing disproportionate about the sentence. It must be remembered that petitioner is a part of uniformed force. He chose to abandon station without authorization. He chose to go home and stayed there for years together without leave or authorization. If this is not clear 5 defiance of authority and utter disregard to discipline then what it is? The essence of an uniformed force is discipline. Such callous attitude of abandoning post and remaining absent for years together cannot be countenanced at any rate. The punishment of dismissal was just, proper and adequate. The writ petition is dismissed. Patna High Court The 19th August, 2010 NAFR Sujit (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)