1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5018 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.5018 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.5018 OF 2005 Laxman Dharma Shelke ...Petitioner Laxman Dharma Shelke ...Petitioner Laxman Dharma Shelke ...Petitioner Vs. Vs. Vs. Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents ----- ----- ----- Mr. Raja Shirke Adv. with Mr. M.S. Karnik Adv. for Mr. Raja Shirke Adv. with Mr. M.S. Karnik Adv. for Mr. Raja Shirke Adv. with Mr. M.S. Karnik Adv. for Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Mr. S.S. Sarkar Adv. for Respondents 1 to 6 Mr. S.S. Sarkar Adv. for Respondents 1 to 6 Mr. S.S. Sarkar Adv. for Respondents 1 to 6 CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATED: 6TH DECEMBER, 2005 DATED: 6TH DECEMBER, 2005 DATED: 6TH DECEMBER, 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Petitioner was a Constable in Central . The Petitioner was a Constable in Central . The Petitioner was a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force unit and was posted at Industrial Security Force unit and was posted at Industrial Security Force unit and was posted at Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilisers Unit, Thal, Dist: Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilisers Unit, Thal, Dist: Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilisers Unit, Thal, Dist: Raigad. He was chargesheeted for absenting himself Raigad. He was chargesheeted for absenting himself Raigad. He was chargesheeted for absenting himself from 7th July 2002 without leave/permission from the from 7th July 2002 without leave/permission from the from 7th July 2002 without leave/permission from the competent authority. The charge no.2 indicates that competent authority. The charge no.2 indicates that competent authority. The charge no.2 indicates that he absented himself from regimental duties, ‘C’ shift he absented himself from regimental duties, ‘C’ shift he absented himself from regimental duties, ‘C’ shift duty on 8th July 2002 and from CISF Unit, RCF Thal duty on 8th July 2002 and from CISF Unit, RCF Thal duty on 8th July 2002 and from CISF Unit, RCF Thal with effect from 9th July 2002 and was absent till the with effect from 9th July 2002 and was absent till the with effect from 9th July 2002 and was absent till the date of chargesheet which is dated 10th March 2003. date of chargesheet which is dated 10th March 2003. date of chargesheet which is dated 10th March 2003. Article 3 of the charge was that the chargesheeted Article 3 of the charge was that the chargesheeted Article 3 of the charge was that the chargesheeted employee suppressed facts to the department regarding employee suppressed facts to the department regarding employee suppressed facts to the department regarding filing of anticipatory bail application being Cri. filing of anticipatory bail application being Cri. filing of anticipatory bail application being Cri. Misc. Appln. No.303 of 2002 before Additional Misc. Appln. No.303 of 2002 before Additional Misc. Appln. No.303 of 2002 before Additional Sessions Judge in connection with C.R.No.73 of 2002 Sessions Judge in connection with C.R.No.73 of 2002 Sessions Judge in connection with C.R.No.73 of 2002 under Sections 380 and 415 of Indian Penal Code under Sections 380 and 415 of Indian Penal Code under Sections 380 and 415 of Indian Penal Code registered with Alibagh Police Station regarding theft registered with Alibagh Police Station regarding theft registered with Alibagh Police Station regarding theft 2 of computers with accessories from Administrative of computers with accessories from Administrative of computers with accessories from Administrative Building, RCF Thal. Building, RCF Thal. Building, RCF Thal. 2. Various witnesses were examined. Based upon Various witnesses were examined. Based upon Various witnesses were examined. Based upon the inquiry report an opportunity was given to the the inquiry report an opportunity was given to the the inquiry report an opportunity was given to the Petitioner to show cause. The Disciplinary Authority Petitioner to show cause. The Disciplinary Authority Petitioner to show cause. The Disciplinary Authority by its final order dated 10th March 2003, considering by its final order dated 10th March 2003, considering by its final order dated 10th March 2003, considering the material on record and the enquiry report and also the material on record and the enquiry report and also the material on record and the enquiry report and also considering the gravity of the misconduct, imposed considering the gravity of the misconduct, imposed considering the gravity of the misconduct, imposed penalty of removal from services. penalty of removal from services. penalty of removal from services. 3. The Petitioner aggrieved preferred an appeal 3. The Petitioner aggrieved preferred an appeal 3. The Petitioner aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority reappreciated the evidence and also noted Authority reappreciated the evidence and also noted Authority reappreciated the evidence and also noted the proceedings in anticipatory bail before the the proceedings in anticipatory bail before the the proceedings in anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court and after considering the point for Sessions Court and after considering the point for Sessions Court and after considering the point for determination concurred with the findings arrived by determination concurred with the findings arrived by determination concurred with the findings arrived by the Disciplinary authority and found that there was no the Disciplinary authority and found that there was no the Disciplinary authority and found that there was no case for interfering and accordingly dismissed the case for interfering and accordingly dismissed the case for interfering and accordingly dismissed the Appeal. It is this order which is the subject matter Appeal. It is this order which is the subject matter Appeal. It is this order which is the subject matter of the present proceeding. of the present proceeding. of the present proceeding. 4. On behalf of the Petitioner it is sought to be 4. On behalf of the Petitioner it is sought to be 4. On behalf of the Petitioner it is sought to be contended that he has been acquitted in the criminal contended that he has been acquitted in the criminal contended that he has been acquitted in the criminal case. Even if that be so that was not the subject case. Even if that be so that was not the subject case. Even if that be so that was not the subject matter of the chargesheet. Even otherwise on perusal matter of the chargesheet. Even otherwise on perusal matter of the chargesheet. Even otherwise on perusal of the judgment it is clear that it was not a clean of the judgment it is clear that it was not a clean of the judgment it is clear that it was not a clean acquittal. The acquittal was on account of acquittal. The acquittal was on account of acquittal. The acquittal was on account of nonavailability of witnesses. In other words as the nonavailability of witnesses. In other words as the nonavailability of witnesses. In other words as the 3 prosecution was not able to produce the witnesses. prosecution was not able to produce the witnesses. prosecution was not able to produce the witnesses. The main findings against the Petitioner are The main findings against the Petitioner are The main findings against the Petitioner are unauthorised absence from the duty. There are two unauthorised absence from the duty. There are two unauthorised absence from the duty. There are two concurrent findings of facts. concurrent findings of facts. concurrent findings of facts. 5. Having considered the proceedings and the 5. Having considered the proceedings and the 5. Having considered the proceedings and the nature of misconduct of an employee of a para-military nature of misconduct of an employee of a para-military nature of misconduct of an employee of a para-military organisation we do not find that the punishment organisation we do not find that the punishment organisation we do not find that the punishment imposed is harsh or disproportionate. In these imposed is harsh or disproportionate. In these imposed is harsh or disproportionate. In these circumstances we do not think this to be a fit case to circumstances we do not think this to be a fit case to circumstances we do not think this to be a fit case to exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction. Hence, exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction. Hence, exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction. Hence, Petition dismissed. Petition dismissed. Petition dismissed. (F.I.REBELLO J.) (F.I.REBELLO J.) (F.I.REBELLO J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)