1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.429 OF 2002 Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh ] Adult, Indian Inhabitant, ] Residing at C/o.Harishankar Kewat ] RB/II, 265/2 Central Railway Qtrs. ] Parel, Mumbai-400012. ] Petitioner. versus 1. The General Manager ] Central Railway, having his office ] at C S T, Mumbai ] ] 2. The Union of India ] Ministry of Railway, ] Rail Bhavan, New Delhi ] Respondents. Mr.R D Mishra for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 14th July 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- PER P B MAJMUDAR, J. 1. By way of this Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.F., Mumbai, CST dated 10/10/2001 by which order the Appeal of the Petitioner came to 2 be dismissed and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was confirmed. 2. The Petitioner was appointed on the post of Rakshak in the R.P.F. Department of Central Railway on 01/05/1979. The Petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings on the ground that he was unauthorizedly absent from duty from 15/02/1991 without giving any intimation to his superiors. In the enquiry initiated against the Petitioner, the charges levelled against him were held to be proved and by an order dated 31/07/1991 the Petitioner was ordered to be removed from the service. 3. Thereafter the Petitioner preferred an Appeal against the said order dated 31/07/1991 which was also dismissed. The Petitioner in the meanwhile approached the Civil Court by way of Civil Suit in which the Petitioner was ordered to be reinstated. 4. Subsequently, the Petitioner preferred a revision against the said order dated 31.7.1991 before the Revisional Authority. The Revisional Authority directed that a fresh enquiry should be held against the Petitioner as the earlier enquiry was conducted exparte. In the mean 3 time the Petitioner was re-instated in service and de-novo enquiry was commenced against the Petitioner from the stage of furnishing the findings of the Enquiry Officer to the Petitioner for submission of his representation against the said findings. Accordingly the findings of the Enquiry Office were serv ed on the Petitioner on 15/5/2001 to which the Petitioner gave his reply on 25/5/2001. By its order dated 15/06/2001, the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the representation made by the Petitioner and after considering his reply, passed an order of compulsory retirement of the Petitioner from service with effect from 20/06/2001. 5. The Petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Chief Security Commissioner, RPF/Mumbai CSTS. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 10/10/2001 dismissed the said Appeal. Against the said order dated 10/10/2001, the Petitioner has filed the instant Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. He submitted that since the Petitioner was mentally sick, he remained absent from duty at the relevant time. He further submitted that even a private doctor, whom the Petitioner had consulted, had 4 opined that the Petitioner was suffering from mental disorder. In this connection the Appellate Authority has found that the Petitioner was treated by one Dr.R S Yadav and Dr.G S Date, but the Petitioner had not sent any intimation in this behalf to his department. It was found that the Petitioner was under treatement between15/2/1991 to 19/2/1991 and was declared fit to resume duty on 20/2/1991. In spite of that, he had not resumed his duty. The Petitioner was thereafter treated by Dr.Date as an outdoor patient. The Appellate Authority found that the doctors are required to give certificate in advance to the government servants and, the Petitioner, who was treated as outdoor patient, was bound to inform his controlling authority of his sickness, but he had not done so. The Appellate Authority found that when the Petitioner was fit to visit Sultanpur and Jaunpur, it was his duty to inform the department about his absence which he had not done. The Appellate Authority has considered this aspect in paragraphs 2 and 3 of its order. 7. In our view, when the Appellate Authority has given cogent reasons as to why the order imposing penalty of compulsory retirement is justified, the same is not required to be interferred with by this Court in its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction and this Court cannot substitute its view for that of the Appellate Authority. The Petitioner was serving as a 5 constable in the RPF of the Central Railway. Unauthorizedly he has remained absent for a considerable period of time. The Revisional Authority and the Appellate Authority have rightly held that when the Petitioner was treated as outdoor patient, he could have informed the said fact to his department. It is rightly held by the Appellate Authority that when the Petitioner was in a position to visit other places and cities, it was his duty to send intimation to the concerned department. In our view considering the facts of the present case, the decisions of the authorities do not suffer from any illegality, this Court would therefore not like to interfere with the order of the Appellate Authority in its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner being an employee of disciplined force should not have acted in such a casual manner. 8. Considering the aforesaid aspect, we do not find any merit in the present Petition. The learned counsel for the Petitioner is not in a position to point out as to how the impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are contrary to law. No illegality in the impugned order was pointed to us. Hence the Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. Sd/- sd/- [R.M.SAVANT, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]