IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1125 of 2009 RATI RAM, son of Sri. Jangli Ram, House No. T. 265 D, Village-Chirag Delhi, P.O.+P.S.-Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110011, Ex. Ct. A/139 EN CRPF. ……Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of Bihar, through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. The Inspector General of Police, N/S CRPF, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-4000614, 3. The Director General CRPF, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Nagpur. 5. The Commandant, 139, BN, Koilwar, Arrah, Bihar. …….Respondents. ----------- 03. 10.08.2009 The petitioner was a constable in CRPF. He has been dismissed from service on ground of unauthorized absence from service. The order of dismissal has been affirmed in appeal by order dated 5th March, 2007 passed by Inspector General, CRPF(Annexure-16). A counter affidavit has been filed. With consent of parties, the writ petition has been heard and is being disposed of at this stage itself. It appears that the petitioner was absent for about four months in between 13.04.2004 to 01.09.2004. A departmental proceeding was initiated by the CRPF authorities for this alleged unauthorized absence from service. Enquiries having been conducted, he was visited with dismissal from service. He appealed against the dismissal. The Appellate Authority set aside the order of - 2 - dismissal directed reinstatement of petitioner with liberty to reinitiate proceedings. Proceedings were then taken up again. In course of enquiries, as petitioner has stated a fact which has not been disputed in the counter affidavit that Enquiry Officer gave him fifteen days time to get genuine documents to establish petitioner’s defence of illness by virtue of infective jaundice. He applied for leave but was not granted the same. Here I may mention that petitioner’s defence was that while at Delhi, he was staying at Malviya Nagar in New Delhi, he contracted Infective Hepatitis. He went to the nearest Primary Health Centre of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi at Mehrauli where he was advised complete bed rest. In course of enquiry he had produced OPD slips and other certificates issued by the Medical Officer Incharge, Primary Health Centre, Mehrauli, New Delhi. These were not been believed as genuine by the authorities on two grounds. One that the certificates that were issued were on stationary print by some private printer and secondly that if he was ill at Delhi itself, he could have reported to the CRPF base Hospital nearby. Petitioner was required to get a clear certificate from the Medical Officer Incharge certifying that the documents earlier submitted by the petitioner were in fact genuine. As noted above, the Enquiry Officer granted him - 3 - fifteen days time to get this certificate certifying genuineness of certificate earlier submitted. Petitioner has stated that it has not been disputed that the enquiry was being conducted at Koilwar in this State near Patna but no leave was sanctioned to him and as such in spite of being granted fifteen days time by the Enquiry Officer, he could not get the said certificate and submit it. This has been taken to be a ground not to believe the genuineness of the certificate earlier submitted. Once again petitioner was dismissed. After dismissal petitioner went to Delhi got the certificate from Dr. A.K. Pandey, Medical Officer Incharge of the Primary Health Centre, Mehrauli, New Delhi which clearly certified that the OPD slips and other fitness certificates were duly issued by the Primary Health Centre. The said certificates also mention a very pertinent fact. It appears that the CRPF had also made some direct enquiries from the Primary Health Centre. This was responded to by the Primary Health Centre on 06.01.2006 to the Authorities. Petitioner annexed this certificate to his memo of appeal and apart from other grounds that he took for assailing the order of dismissal, he also gave the list of about seven constables who had been absent from service without leave much longer than petitioner but they have been visited with relative minor punishment of down grade of one scale, depriving of an annual increments etc. He - 4 - prayed accordingly that even if his defence is not accepted, he should be visited with a similar punishment and the extreme punishment of dismissal from service should not be given. The memo of appeal mentioning these facts are Annexure-13 to the writ petition. The Appellate Authority notices the issues raised. It only records that in spite of opportunity being given petitioner was unable to file genuine certificates about authenticity of documents earlier submitted in the departmental proceedings earlier. They noticed about various cases referred by the petitioner with regard to quantum of punishment but then in virtually one short of paragraph everything is negatived on the ground that having been given opportunity he did not produce evidence of authenticity of documents earlier produced. The Appellate Authority totally ignored the certificates duly granted by the authorities certifying the genuineness of papers already issued and filed. The Appellate Authority did not even discuss why and under what circumstances similarly situated persons who were in worse position than petitioner were let off with smaller punishment whereas petitioner visited with dismissal. Having appreciated the facts as aforesaid, in my view, the appellate order can not be sustained. It must be remembered that the appellate proceedings are quasi - 5 - judicial proceedings. Petitioner is being visited with extreme punishment of dismissal. Petitioner had filed certificate certifying the authenticity of documents earlier filed. Those certificates could not be wished away by any circumstances. At best the authorities should have ordered for fresh enquiry and asked their counterpart in Delhi to verify the authenticity of certificates issued by the Primary Health Centre, Mehrauli, New Delhi. Petitioner did everything possible in his command. He produced the original papers, he produced the certificates issued by the Medical Officer Incharge of the Primary Health Centre. That is all that the petitioner could do and was required to do for establishing his defence of illness. Rejecting the same as unbelievable has no legal basis. The findings are perverse and the punishment imposed in fact is unreasonable and grossly disproportionate. Petitioner’s specifically cited seven cases in his memo of appeal were similarly or worse situated persons were dealt much more leniently. This fact is also noted in the appellate order but without discussing those cases, without distinguishing those cases, petitioner’s maximum penalty of dismissal has been sustained. This on the face of it is arbitrary. These two findings put together clearly establishes that there appears to be some other reason for imposing such extreme penalty on petitioner which is not - 6 - discussed or which could not be disclosed for reason best known to the Authority. Punishment is obviously quite arbitrary and grossly disproportionate. However as is well established by series of Judgments of the Apex Court that in case of disproportionality of sentence what can at best be done is to remand the matter to the Authority for reconsideration. This Court would normally have remanded the matter for reconsideration but as to the first issue itself this Court finds that the rejection of the documents produced in his defence being perverse, it must follow that there being genuine and authentic certificates produced in support of petitioner’s defence, the petitioner can not at all be proceeded against as no delinquency is left to be considered or punished. In that view of the matter, I am left with no option but to set aside the appellate order and allow this writ application. Petitioner will be deem to be in continuous service for all purposes. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)