THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.10028 OF 2004 DATED ________ DECEMBER, 2009 BETWEEN B.Rangaiah … Petitioner and The Commandant, 90th Btn., Head Quarters, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad. And Another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.10028 OF 2004 ORDER The petitioner, a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), challenges his dismissal from service vide proceedings dated 20.10.2000, confirmed in appeal by the proceedings dated 09.08.2003 and seeks a consequential direction to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits including back wages, seniority, promotion, etc. While the petitioner was stationed at Tirathmukh, he availed 15 days casual leave from 30.08.1999 to 17.09.1999 for visiting his sick wife. However, he did not report back for duty on 21.09.1999 as directed. It is his case that he was suffering from mental depression, jaundice and viral hepatitis from18.09.1999 and that he initially took treatment for 3 days at his native place in Prakasam District and was shifted thereafter to Hyderabad for special treatment. It is his claim that his health improved only after prolonged treatment which went on till 30.10.2000. A medical certificate issued by a physician attached to one Clinic Srinivasa Diagnostic Centre, Sanjeevareddynagar, Hyderabad, is placed on record certifying that the petitioner underwent treatment for chronic malaria, jaundice, viral hepatitis and mental depression from 22.09.1999 to 30.10.2000. It is stated therein that he was advised treatment and rest during the said period. The petitioner states that charge sheet dated 15.04.2000 was issued by the CRPF in respect of his overstaying of leave and the alleged disobedience of superior’s orders, but as the same was sent to his native place it was not served upon him. He further states that an enquiry was conducted ex parte and a report was submitted holding that the charges levelled against him were duly proved. It is his grievance that without giving him an opportunity, the proceedings dated 20.10.2000 were passed dismissing him from service. He further states that the said dismissal order was not served upon him and that when he made a representation on 29.04.2002 requesting the Commandant, 90th Battalion of the CRPF, Secunderabad, to permit him to join duty or in the alternative, to furnish the disciplinary proceedings held against him, if any, the dismissal order was furnished to him. The petitioner claims to have filed an appeal against the same on 15.06.2002 and thereafter a reminder appeal on 26.06.2003. The appeal was rejected by proceedings dated 09.08.2003. Hence, this writ petition. The disciplinary action taken by the CRPF against the petitioner is assailed by him on several grounds. However, Sri J.M.Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, mainly stressed upon one single ground – that the punishment imposed upon his client was disproportionate. The other grounds raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are with regard to the conduct of the enquiry proceedings and do not stand to reason, given the facts of the case. In any event, as the petitioner admittedly was not at the given address, being his native place, he cannot find fault with the CRPF for the non-service of the proceedings upon him personally during the enquiry and thereafter. In the counter filed on behalf of the CRPF, it is stated that the petitioner was specifically informed at the time of availing casual leave that no extension would be granted to him and that he was to report back for duty by 21.09.1999. It is stated that thereafter, letter dated 05.10.1999 was addressed to the petitioner calling upon him to report for duty immediately but he failed to comply with this direction also. Consequently, in accordance with Para-6.30 of the ‘CRPF Group Centre and Battalion Officers’ Manual’, a Court of Inquiry was conducted and the petitioner was declared as a Deserter from the Force with effect from 22.09.1999. A copy of the same was also said to have been sent to his home address, which was however returned undelivered. Charge sheet dated 15.04.2000 was also despatched to his home address through Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due, which is said to have been received by him, but the same did not evoke any response. It is further stated that the Enquiry Officer appointed to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner, time and again directed the petitioner by addressing him at his home address to report before him for the enquiry but to no avail. Accordingly, the enquiry proceedings were conducted ex parte. A copy of the enquiry report, incriminating the petitioner, is said to have been sent to the petitioner’s home address under letter dated 22.09.2000 by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due and as per the acknowledgement received from the postal authorities, it is stated that the petitioner received the same on 28.09.2000, but failed to submit his representation. Thereupon, the proceedings dated 20.10.2000 were passed imposing upon the petitioner the punishment of dismissal from service. It is stated that a copy of the said proceedings was also sent to his home address by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due. It is stated that the petitioner for the first time addressed letter dated 29.04.2002 requesting posting orders and asking for supply of the disciplinary proceedings, if any. In response, he was informed by letter dated 27.05.2002 that he had already been dismissed from service. It is stated that upon the petitioner’s appeal, the appellate authority thoroughly examined the case and rejected the same by proceedings dated 09.08.2003. It is further stated that the quantum of punishment was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct committed by the petitioner. Along with the counter affidavit, material documents pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings have been placed on record. The charge sheet dated 15.04.2000 is filed, which indicates that the petitioner was charged with misconduct for overstaying his leave without permission or sanction of leave from the competent authority and for committing an act of disobedience as he had failed to obey the orders issued by the superior officer calling upon him to re-join duty, vide letter dated 05.10.1999. A copy of the reminder appeal filed by the petitioner on 26.06.2003 is also made part of the record which reflects that the petitioner admitted that his family members had received certain communications from the CRPF but attempted to explain his lack of response by stating that owing to their illiteracy, his family members failed to retain the papers and also did not inform the Commandant of the CRPF about his illness. Relevant to note, this appeal petition did not make any reference to production of a medical certificate in support of the petitioner’s plea that he was sick throughout. In his reply affidavit the petitioner denied that he had deserted the force willfully and reiterated that he had been suffering from illness. He denied receipt of the charge-sheet and enquiry report. He asserted that the punishment imposed on him was disproportionate as it was a case of mere absenteeism, that too, due to ill health and stated that his dismissal from service was totally unwarranted. In the light of the facts aforestated, it is clear that the petitioner availed casual leave from 30.08.1999 and did not choose to report till 29.04.2002, when he addressed a letter requesting posting orders. So far as the conduct of the enquiry proceedings is concerned, it is demonstrated that the CRPF took care and caution to follow the due procedure by addressing all the necessary documents and communications to the petitioner at his given home address and according to it, some of the proceedings were received. In his appeal, the petitioner also admitted receipt of some of these communications and documents. Therefore, no fault can be laid at the door of the CRPF in this regard. All the more so, in the light of the established delay and apathy on the part of the petitioner. The only point that arises is as to the proportionality of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner. Sri J.M.Naidu, learned counsel, stressed upon the fact that his client was sick with various illnesses which required prolonged treatment and therefore, such absence could not be construed to be a misconduct. He assailed the punishment of dismissal from service visited upon the petitioner as being unduly harsh and shockingly disproportionate. Reliance is placed on a catena of decisions in support of this contention. In the unreported Judgment dated 10.08.2007 of a Division Bench of this Court in THE DEPUTY CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, RAIL NILAYAM, SECUNDERABAD V/s. T.RAJ[1], it was observed as under: “It is settled law that the High Court’s power of judicial review of the disciplinary action against the delinquent employee is very limited. The High Court can interfere with the order of punishment if it is found to be vitiated due to violation of the statutory rules or regulations or the principles of natural justice and such violation is found to have prejudiced the cause of the delinquent. The High Court can also nullify the order of punishment if the finding of guilt recorded by the enquiring/ disciplinary authority is based on no evidence or is influenced by extraneous factors/considerations. The doctrine of proportionality and Wednesbury Rule can be invoked by the High Court if it is convinced that the punishment imposed by the employer is per se arbitrary/capricious or wholly disproportionate to the misconduct found proved. Of course, the last mentioned ground is not available in cases involving fraud, misrepresentation or misappropriation/ embezzlement of public funds.” Dealing with the scope of interference by the High Court in the matter of imposition of punishment, the Supreme Court in DIRECTOR GENERAL, RPF V/s. CH.SAI BABU[2] observed as under: “Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the relevant factors including the nature of the charges proved, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected and discipline required to be maintained, and the department/establishment in which the delinquent person concerned works.” I n UNION OF INDIA V/s. GIRIRAJ SHARMA[3], the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where an employee of the CRPF had over-stayed the period of leave by 12 days. As he had explained the circumstances in which it was inevitable for him to do so, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the punishment of dismissal for over- staying the leave in the said circumstances was harsh. The facts of the present case are distinguishable, as the petitioner did not surface from August, 1999 till April, 2002. The above judgment is of no avail to him. I n SYED ZAHEER HUSSAIN V/s. UNION OF INDIA[4], the employee was dismissed from service for unauthorized absence for a period of one week. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court took the view that the punishment of dismissal from service was too harsh and ought to be substituted by an appropriate lesser punishment. This case is also distinguishable on facts and therefore does not aid the petitioner. I n K.BALANAGI REDDY V/s. APSRTC, HYDERABAD[5], a learned Judge of this Court, considering the proportionality of punishment of removal from service for unauthorized absenteeism for one day, held that such punishment was disproportionate to the proved misconduct and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for imposing any other punishment. This decision is also of no avail to the petitioner. In the unreported judgment of this Court in D.RAMULU V/s. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA[6], a learned Judge of this Court was dealing with the unauthorized absence of a Constable in the Railway Protection Force and the consequent punishment of removal from service imposed upon him. However, in that case the Constable was admitted to the Railway Hospital for a period of over two months, clearly evidencing the factum of his sickness. In the present case, the petitioner, except for producing a certificate from a private Physician attached to a Diagnostic Centre, did not produce any authenticated proof of his being un-well for a period of over one year. Further, as noted supra, he did not produce the same along with his Appeal dated 26.06.2003 as no mention is made therein of such certificate. As the petitioner did not file a copy of Appeal dated 15.06.2002 said to have been filed by him and as the learned counsel for the petitioner stated, in the first instance, that his client did not retain a copy thereof, the learned counsel for the CRPF was directed to verify whether the same was available in the records of the CRPF. However, upon instructions, the learned counsel for the CRPF reported that no such Appeal copy was available in the records. Thereupon, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to ascertain from his client whether a copy of the said Appeal was available with him and then produced a signed copy of the said Appeal. It is however to be noticed that this copy, typed on white paper, appears to have been soiled deliberately so as to give it an impression of age. Therein, mention is made of the original medical certificate being enclosed. However, the copy is not authenticated as there is no stamp of receipt by the CRPF and further, there is no explanation as to how the petitioner chanced upon this signed copy having earlier stated that the same was not available with him. Therefore, no credence can be given to this Appeal copy dated 15.06.2002. In the absence of the same, as per the Appeal dated 26.06.2003, it is clear that the petitioner did not produce any credible and acceptable document before the CRPF to prove his illness. Therefore, the judgment in D.RAMULU is not helpful to the petitioner. In another unreported judgment of this Court in VIDYASAGAR V/s. CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SECUNDERABAD[7], a learned Judge of this Court held that where the Doctor’s certificate produced by the Constable was accepted, duly establishing the factum of his treatment, the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate. This case, being similar to D.RAMULU, is distinguishable from the case on hand. The last judgment cited by the learned counsel being that of a learned Judge of this Court in P.BALACHANDRA REDDY V/s. THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, ANANTAPUR[8] is also of no avail to him. In that case, the learned Judge, while dealing with the removal from service of a Conductor for cash and ticket irregularities, concluded that as the said charges did not relate to illegal gratification and a dishonest intention to defraud the Corporation, the punishment imposed was disproportionate. In the light of the aforestated facts and circumstances and taking into account the precedential law on this aspect, the petitioner has not made out a case warranting interference on the ground of proportionality of the punishment to the misconduct. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the imposition of punishment should normally be left to the domain of the Disciplinary Authority and should not be disturbed by the High Court unless specific grounds warranting inteference are made out. It is also to be noted that the petitioner was a Constable in the CRPF, a uniformed service, which requires a higher degree of discipline and exactitude from its members. A high standard of expectation is reposed by the CRPF in its Constables and the petitioner having failed to rise to such standard cannot assail the disciplinary action taken against him in accordance with the procedure. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J _______DECEMBER, 2009 PGS [1] Writ Appeal No.625 of 2007 [2] (2003) 4 SCC 331 [3] AIR 1994 SC 215 [4] AIR 1999 SC 3367 [5] 2002 (3) ALT 422 [6] Writ Petition No.6021 of 1999, dated 08.07.2005 [7] Writ Petition No.12367 of 1992, dated 22.08.2002 [8] 1994 (1) ALT 208