IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.67 of 2010 1. PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH @ PRAMOD SINGH S/O KAMTA PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL.- TRILOKCHAK, P.O.+P.S. DIGHWARA, DISTT.- SARAN (CHAPRA) Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIR, NEW DELHI 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, C.R.P.F. C.G.O. COMPLEX, NORTH BLOCK, LODHI ROAD, N.DELHI 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, C.R.P.F. BIHAR, SECTOR PATNA (BIHAR) 4. THE D.I.G. OF POLICE, C.R.P.F. MUZAFFARPUR (BIHAR) 5. THE COMMANDANT, C.R.P.F. 160 BATALLIAN ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Purnendu Narayan Singh, Advocate. For the Union of India : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Asstt. Solicitor General. ===== 4. 11.02.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Union of India, who has produced the records of the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner for unauthorized absence from the place of posting for 486 days i.e. about 16 months. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that during the period between 16.9.2006 till 25.12.2007 he was suffering from tuberculosis and on account of such ailment he could not report at his place of transfer in Jammu & Kashmir. In support of plea of illness during the proceeding petitioner produced the prescription and certificate of the attending physician but failed to produce any contemporaneous document like pathological report, x-ray and cash-memo showing purchase of medicine and on account of failure to produce the contemporaneous document his plea of illness has not been accepted by the Enquiry Officer and in the light of the report of the Enquiry Officer he has been dismissed by the disciplinary - 2 - authority and the dismissal has also been affirmed in appeal and revision filed by the petitioner. The memorial filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer ought to have accepted his plea of illness in view of the certificate and prescription of the attending physician and in support of such plea learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the observations of this Court made in order dated 13.4.2007 passed in the case of Mithilesh Kumar Pathak Vs. The Union of India & Ors. in C.W.J.C.No. 5308 of 2004 as contained in Annexure-4 to this application. The observations of this Court made in the said case and relied upon by the petitioner in support of his writ petition is quoted hereinbelow :- “In the present case petitioner has submitted a series of evidence. It is not only one certificate of a doctor which is usually in case of over stayal. There are many corroborative evidence on record which were produced before the enquiry officer and this Court is of the opinion that ground given for rejecting those evidence that they were probably written in the same pen and therefore were granted on the same day, cannot be said to be a reasonable deduction. More so since these evidence were never put through any scientific test but were subjective to come to an opinion of the enquiry officer based on conjectures and surmises. Wisdom of an enquiry officer can never be allowed to take - 3 - the place of evidence however high that wisdom may be.” 3. It would appear from the quotation above that besides the certificate of the doctor other evidences were also placed before the Enquiry Officer but in the case in hand petitioner has only placed the medical prescriptions, in the circumstances, the finding of the Enquiry Officer that plea of illness has been raised by the petitioner only with a view to wriggle out of the charge of unauthorized absence cannot be interfered with by this Court as the findings recorded in the prescription and the certificate could not be corroborated by producing the contemporaneous document, namely, the pathological report, x-ray and the cash-memo showing purchase of the medicine as advised under the prescription. 4. In view of my observation above, I am not inclined to interfere with the matter, however, while disposing of the writ petition I would observe that the authorities of the Central Reserve Police Force would consider the fact that petitioner has rendered 18 years of service to the force which was without any blemish and in appreciation of such fact the punishment of dismissal be converted into punishment of compulsory retirement. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)