IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3518 of 2001 Bishnu Dutta Shukla, son of Shitla Prasad Shukla, resident of Village- Bijoura, P.O. Sirsa, P.S. Meza, Tehsil Meza, District- Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh. ..... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. 3. The Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, K.K. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 4. The Inspector General of Police, Bihar Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, Patna. 5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Patna. 6. The Deputy Director (Personnel), Central Reserve Police Force, K.K. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 7. The Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, G.C., Central Reserve Police Force, Muzaffarpur. 8. The Commandant, 87 Bn., Central Reserve Police Force, Panisagar, North Tripura. ..... Respondents. ----------- 05- 5.12.2008 Heard Mr. Raju Giri for the petitioner, and Mr. Pradeep Narain Kuar, learned Additional Standing Counsel No.1. It arises out of disciplinary proceedings and the petitioner has been dismissed from service on account of unauthorised absence. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and have supported the impugned action. 2 2. A brief narration of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner was, at the relevant point of time, posted as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force at Pani Sagar, State of Tripura. He was on sanctioned leave for the period from 10.9.1996 to 27.9.1996. He did not report for duties on 28.9.1996, and thereafter in spite of repeated communications leading to the show-cause notice dated 2.10.1996 (Annexure-2). He did not show cause to the same. He was ultimately declared ‘deserter’ as per the terms of the provisions of Central Reserve Police Force Act 1949, read with rule 31(c) of the of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules 1955, vide order dated 29.3.1997 (Annexure-6). The petitioner thereafter had shown cause by his communication dated 25.5.1997 (Annexure-8), wherein he, inter alia, stated that the employer-employee relationship had come to an end and, therefore, he declined to appear before the enquiry officer. He also took the stand that the said order dated 29.3.1997 (Annexure-6) had been passed by the Commandant, whereas the enquiry had been entrusted to the Deputy Commandant 3 which was impermissible in law. In view of repeated communications, the petitioner did not appear before the learned enquiry officer leading to ex-parte enquiry report wherein he was found guilty of wilful and unauthorised absence. The petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 25.7.1997 (Aannexure-9). His appeal was dismissed by order dated 21.1.1998 (Annexure-11). His revision application was allowed by order dated 12.10.1998 (Annexure-12), whereby both the orders were set aside, he was reinstated in service and the learned disciplinary authority was directed to conduct a DE NOVO enquiry. In spite of repeated notices, the petitioner did not appear before the learned enquiry officer once again. The ex parte enquiry report found him guilty leading to fresh order of dismissal dated 11.1.2000 (Annexure-22). His appeal has been dismissed by order dated 1.5.2000 (Annexure-23), and the revision application has been dismissed by order dated 4.11.2000 (Annexure-25). Hence this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of proven charges. The finding 4 against the petitioner is of absence from duties, and not disobedience or dishonesty or the like. He, therefore, pleads for mercy and submits that he may be reinstated in service with deprivations like arrears of salary etc. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned action. He submits that it is not a fit case where compassion can be shown to the petitioner. He has pointed out certain circumstances in support of its submission. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The admitted position is that he was on authorised, sanctioned leave from 10.9.1996 to 27.9.1996. He was obviously required to report for duties on 28.9.1996 which he did not do. It is further the admitted position that in spite of repeated communications from the authorities, he did not report for duties. The petitioner has placed before me various medical certificates in an effort to show that he was really ill and could not report for duties. I am afraid, it is not possible in writ jurisdiction to entertain these documents for the first time. It is not a 5 court of facts. The scope of interference in judicial review with respect to departmental proceeding is narrow and well-known. The petitioner ought to have placed the materials before the learned enquiry officer to establish his defence. 6. We are ignoring the earlier order of dismissal and the appellate order. We are really concerned with the fresh order of dismissal, the appellate order and the revisional order. The learned enquiry officer has found, and has been accepted by the learned disciplinary authority, that the petitioner was on unauthorised leave from 28.9.1996 and ever thereafter. It was wilful absence and, therefore, he has been found guilty. As stated hereinabove, the petitioner did not appear before the learned enquiry officer, did not take any step to disprove the charges, nor did he examine any witness in support of his case. He did show-cause but that was not on merits and he indeed challenged the jurisdiction and the authority of the learned disciplinary authority to conduct the proceedings against the petitioner for the reasons indicated hereinabove. It is thus evident that the 6 petitioner is really guilty of continued, wilful and unauthorised absence from 28.9.1996 and ever thereafter. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has really prayed for lenient treatment. Wilful and unauthorised absence in uniform services is a very serious matter. This show absence of devotion to duties, and also defiance. Furthermore, the cause shown by him puts him in dim light. He challenged the jurisdiction of the respondent authorities in conducting the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner because in his opinion, employer-employee relationship had come to an end. He had taken another equally illogical stand in refusing to appear before the Deputy Commandant, the learned enquiry officer for the reasons indicated hereinabove. All these factors cumulatively weight heavily against the petitioner. The learned enquiry officer has clearly found that he was wilfully and unauthorisedly absent which indeed means that he was absent without any valid reason at all. This shows great sense of indiscipline and defiance. Not submitting to the jurisdiction of the lawful authority is a very serious matter 7 for any citizen, particularly with respect to the employees of the uniformed services. It thus appears to me that there is no mitigating circumstance in favour of the petitioner. On the contrary, he has created for himself only accentuated circumstances. It is not possible to take a lenient view. 8. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/