Punishment for dismissal from duties valid for long unauthorized absence from duty: Delhi High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI S 54 W.P.(C) 9854 2021 & CM APPLs. 30337 338 2021 MOHD. RAFI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kaushal Yadav Advocate with Mr. Shafik Ahmed and Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra Advocates. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CRPF ORS & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: D.S.Mehandru Advocate with Mr. Akshat Singh Advocate. Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh DC Law Date of Decision:08th September 2021 HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA JUDGMENT MANMOHAN J:The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing. Present writ petition has been filed challenging t he order dat ed 11 th June 2019 issued by the Respondent No. 1 an d order dat ed 08 th Au gust 2017 issued by the Respondent No. 2 whereby the Petitioner was rem oved from service. Petitioner also seeks reinstatement of service wit h fu ll back wages and other consequential benefits. W.P.(C) 9854 2021 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that t he Petitioner was n ot served with any notice asking him to rejoin his duty or regardin g in itiation of departmental proceedings for the alleged misconduct of over st aying on sanctioned leave. He further states that t he pu nishment of rem oval from service for alleged misconduct of continuous absence from duty with effect from 06th June 2016 awarded under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act 1949 is highly disproportionate. He states that the Petitioner over st ayed h is leave due to his mental condition and subsequent illness caused due to the matrimonial cases instituted by the Petitioner’s wife against him before t he family court Moradabad and the removal of the Petitioner’s minor children from his custody. This Court is of the view that the petitioner who is a member of Central Armed Police Forceswas obliged to report back t o du ty after expiry of the leave. Respondents CRPF was under no obligation in law to keep on issuing notices to invite the petitioner to re join his service. Consequently this Court is of the view that the petitioner h as violated h is solemn duty and responsibility to report back on time. The factum of matrimonial dispute and illness could have been agitated before the Inquiry Officer. In any event the petitioner sh ould h ave either reported back on time or sought extension of his leave which h e did not do in the present case. For long u nauthorised absence from du ty t he punishment of dismissal of a CAPF personnel cannot be h eld t o be per se This matter calls for no interference in writ jurisdiction. Consequently the writ petition along with pending applications is dismissed. disproportionate. W.P.(C) 9854 2021 7. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e mail. MANMOHAN J SEPTEMBER 8 2021 TS NAVIN CHAWLA J W.P.(C) 9854 2021 

Summary: For long unauthorized absence from duty, the punishment of dismissal of a CAPF personnel cannot be held to be per se disproportionate. The above was observed by the Delhi High Court recently, in the matter of Mohd. Rafi v. Deputy Inspector General, CRPF &amp; Ors. &amp; Ors.  [W.P.(C) 9854/2021 &amp; CM APPLs. 30337-338/2021]. The matter was heard on 8th of September 2021, before a division bench, consisting of Justice Manmohan and Justice Navin Chawla. The facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner was a Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) officer. He was an under obligation to return back to the duty after the expiry of the leave, that was sanctioned to him. And in furtherance to the above, he didn’t join his duty again. The counsel on the behalf of the petitioners contended that there was no such issue of his rejoining that came to him. According to the petitioners, the dismissal from his post was highly disproportionate.