Ex Constable Balbir Kumar v. Union of India

IV. According to him, such shifting could not be informed to the respondents, in view of the fact that the petitioner was also not well and was equally required to attend his ailing mother.

V. According to the petitioner, he thereafter approached the J & K High

VI. The said writ petition was rendered infructuous in view of the impugned order of dismissal dated 3rd March, 2023.

6. While questioning the order impugned of dismissal, according to learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is denial of opportunity of fair hearing to the petitioner as the show cause notice, which were addressed to the petitioner, were at his earlier place of residence, viz., at Samba, and not at Amritsar. He would further urge that the medical documents would certify, his ailment and the fact that initial casual leave which was subsequently extended to earned leave, sufficiently establishes that the respondents were satisfied about the genuine need of the leave to the petitioner in view of the difficulties and hardship faced by him. In such an eventuality, his contentions are that for the circumstances which were beyond his reasonable control -(a) he was unable to inform the respondents about his change of address from Samba to Amritsar; (b) so also about the ailments that he and his mother suffered.

7. In the aforesaid background, it was urged that the order impugned not only needs to be set aside and quashed, but fair opportunity of hearing be granted to him.

8. In alternate, his contentions are that having put more than 12 years of unblemished service with the respondents, against the principle of equity disproportionate punishment of dismissal is imposed on him. In the given set of facts and circumstances, it is urged that the petitioner at least deserves a discharge, which will qualify him for further employment.

9. As against above, learned counsel for the respondents states that the conduct of the petitioner was too casual, indisciplined, not befitting the status of that of a member of a disciplined central armed police force. If the conduct of the petitioner is permitted to be continued by causing indulgence in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, same will pass inappropriate message to the members of the disciplined force.

10. The counsel for the respondent would further urge that the casual approach of the petitioner after the leave period was over can be inferred from his failure in not remaining in contact with the respondent-employer. Failure on the part of the petitioner to inform the change of his residential address, which is a conduct contrary to the service conditions.

11. According to him, there is no case made out for causing interference.

12. Having considered the rival claims, it is apparent that the petitioner was served with a dismissal order which is impugned in the present petition, which preceded with show-cause notices.

13. The case of the petitioner is that he was granted casual and subsequently earned leave.

14. Both the casual and earned leave were utilized by the petitioner as claimed by him- a) for change of his residence; b) for assisting the appropriate medical treatment to his mother and c) that he himself was ailing from corn issue, and as such was required to undergo medical treatment.

15. If we appreciate the aforesaid three causes cited by the petitioner justifying his illegal absence from the duty, we are required to be sensitive to the very principle on which the Central Armed Police Forces work. Amongst others, one of the most important principle is to maintain discipline.

16. Amongst other important work assigned to the respondent employer is to protect the border of the country. It works on the principle of security, service, etc. It is the first line of defence in border.

17. Corelating with above, the event of illegal and unauthorized absence of the petitioner, in our opinion, respondent was justified in having serious approach in the matter of maintaining discipline.

18. As far as the shifting of residence is concerned, it was for the petitioner to inform the employer, i.e., respondents herein about his change of residence from Samba, J&K to Amritsar in Punjab.

19. Admittedly, there is a failure on the part of the petitioner intimating to the respondent about his absence, change of address.

20. In this background, it appears that the notice of inquiry and the proceedings were not served on him on his changed address as same was never notified by him to the respondent. Though, under service conditions, he was obligated to do so. The respondent rightly continued communication with the petitioner on the address which was furnished by the petitioner on record.

21. As such, the petitioner himself has created a situation of failing to comply with the service conditions on one hand and trying to take advantage of such failure by canvassing a ground that notices of the proceedings were never served on him and as such, the order of dismissal is based on the proceedings in which he was not granted opportunity.

22. The petitioner, in our opinion, in this factual background, is required to be blamed for.

23. There is no iota of evidence to infer that the petitioner’s mother was seriously ailing or petitioner was suffering from any serious medical ailment. So as to justify the contention that the petitioner was suffering from serious medical ailment, reliance is placed on a certificate issued by a BAMS doctor certifying that the petitioner was suffering from “corn” disease and was advised complete rest from 18th July, 2022 to 02nd August, 2022.

24. In the certificate, no details are disclosed, whatsoever, of nature of disease and the part of the body, where the petitioner suffered such problems. Rather the very perusal of the said medical certificate creates a doubt about its genuineness. As neither the treatment administered to him, nor the, surgery if any as orally canvassed, is mentioned.

25. Apart from above, the least that was expected from the petitioner was to communicate with the department-respondents/employer about his medical condition. The prudent man like the petitioner was expected to seek the medical leave and not the casual or the earned leave in the matter.

26. The very cause cited by the petitioner to substantiate his claim that his absence was for a genuine and bona fide cause, as such cannot be inferred from the record.

27. His casual approach from the aforesaid factual matrix can be appropriately inferred, having regard to the narrations made hereinabove. Rightly so pointed out by counsel for the respondent that, in case, the petitioner is permitted to continue in the employment of the respondents, the same will leave an inappropriate signal to the members of the force that they can conduct in a casual manner and get back in the employment through the Court’s order.

28. In view of the aforesaid factual background and in view of the reasons recorded hereinabove, we see no reason to cause interference in extraordinary jurisdiction. The request made by the petitioner that instead of dismissal from service the same be converted into discharge, also does not warrant any consideration, particularly, when the petitioner’s conduct does not appear to be genuine.

29. That being so the petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly.

30. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

31. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE (JUDGE)

AMIT SHARMA (JUDGE) JULY 31, 2026/sn/dm/ns