Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
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.
Through: D.S.Mehandru,Advocate with Mr. Akshat Singh,Advocate.
Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh , DC Law CRPF.
Date of Decision: 08th September, 2021
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
JUDGMENT
1. The petition has been heardby way of video conferencing.
2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11th June,2019 issued by the Respondent No. 1 and order dated 08th August, 2017 issued by the Respondent No. 2, whereby the Petitioner was removed from service. Petitioner also seeks reinstatement of service with full back wages and other consequential benefits. 2021:DHC:2775-DB
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner statesthat the Petitioner was not served with any notice asking him to rejoin his duty or regarding initiation of departmental proceedings for the alleged misconduct of over staying on sanctioned leave. He further states that the punishment of removal from service for alleged misconduct of continuousabsence 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 stayed his leave due to his mental condition and subsequent illness caused due to the matrimonial cases institutedby the Petitioner’s wife against him before the family court,Moradabadand the removal of thePetitioner’sminor children from his custody.
4. This Court is of the view that the petitioner, who is a member of Central ArmedPolice Forces (CAPFs), was obliged to report back to duty 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 has violated his solemn duty and responsibilityto report back on time.
5. The factum of matrimonial dispute and illness could have been agitatedbefore the Inquiry Officer.In any event the petitioner should have either reported back on timeor sought extension of his leave-- which he did not do in the present case. For long unauthorised absence from duty the punishment of dismissal of a CAPF personnel cannot be held to be per se disproportionate.
6. This matter calls for no interference in writ jurisdiction. Consequently, thewrit petition along with pendingapplications is dismissed.
7. The order be uploaded on the websiteforthwith.Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail. MANMOHAN,J NAVIN CHAWLA, J SEPTEMBER 8, 2021