The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Sri Mohd. Mumtaz Pasha, learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Sri M. prudhvi Raj, learned counsel representing Sri R. Mangulal, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The oetition r filed the writ oet tion seekino the followino relief : "...to issue a writ, order or directions more particularly writ of mandamus to declare the orders of the 3'd respondent dated 29.10.2079 in proceeding No.11014 in conforming (1)/Appeal/SKM-BDL(B)/SZlL&R/2019 orders of the 4th respondent dated 16.06.2015 in Proceeding No.V-15014/ CISF/BDL(KB/B)/DISC/ MAI-01/ SKM/2O15/3L45 in removing the petitioner from service, is illegal and against to the principles of law, consequentially to set aside the orders of the 3'd respondent in conforming the orders of 4th respondent and to reinstate the petitioner in service.with all other service benefits and pass...". 3 The case of the Detitioner in brief as per the averments made in the affidavit filedb v the oetitioner in suDDort of the Dresent Writ Petitaon is as under:- The petitioner was appointed as Constable in CISF in the year 2009. The petitioner was transferreb from CISF unit NLC .- YI, 2 SN, J wP_12748-?022 Neyveli to CISF unit BDL, Bhanur, Medak and mc'' ement order was issued on 30.06.2014, the petitioner was grar ted ten days leave for joining at new place of posting. The : hospitalized on 10.07.2014 due to malaria l :titioner was rd jaundice. Thereafter the petitioner again seriously fell sick place i.e. Bishal Village, Bihar District as the : sufferlng from depression and psychic ailments. -l l at his native ltitioner was e petitioner's wife had informed to the respondent No.4 about tf e ill-health of the petitioner. On 04.07.2017 the petitioner I :quested the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to join duty but the rest ondent Nos.4 and 5 informed the petitioner that ex-parfe enclt iry has been conducted against the petitioner and order, date

116.06.2015 was passed removing the petitioner from service' fhe petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent No.3, wtt r rejected the appeal vide order dated 29.08.2077 stating tha: overstayed for a period of t37 days without the petitioner any leave or permission from respondent No.4, which amount:; to misconduct

and dereliction of duty. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ pet tion.

4. PE ED TH RECO -4 ) ) Y 3 SN, J wP t2'748 2022 (A) The rticle of Charoe issued to the oeti dated 30.09 .2014 bv the soonde t No.3 is extra cted hereu nder: "CISF No.091560102 EX-CONST/GD/Shailesh Kumar Mandat of CISF Unit BDL Bhanur while posted at CISF Unit NLC Neyveli was relieved on regular posting from CISF Unit Neyveli to CISF Unit Bhanur on 30.06.2014 (AN) vide CISF Unit NLC Neyveli Movement Order bearing No.E-3g014/ movement order/Adm-I/14/4996 dated 30.06.2014 As per directions contained in the said movement order, he was entitled to avail 10 days joining time from 01.07.2014 to 10.07.20L4 and supposed to report at CISF Unit BDL Bhanur on Ll-O7-2014 (FN) but he did not report at CISF unit BDL Bhanur on 7t-O7-2OL4 and overstayed from joining time w.e.f . 17.07.2014 to24.LL.2014 for a period of 137 days on his own without any leave or permission from the competent authority and reported at CISF Unit BDL Bhanur on 25.11.2014. His act of non-r Dortino in time to th new BDL .11 f

11. l4 r indi scioline dereli f lawful ord rs con siderino that heisa memberof dis IDlined central Armed Police force of the Uni n", ion of duW and disobedienc (B) o n N 5 1 CISF BDL KB Dis Ma -o1 KM 20t51314s dated 16.06.2015 i t p tonerbv 4 SN, ] \r'P 12748 2022 sDondent No.4 in D rticular o ra No ;.4 to 9is d her I '4. In the Departmental Enquiry, the Ctri was offered all reasonable oppottunities ':r case, but the Charged Official neither defendc attending the enquiry nor submitted his repl findings of Enquiry Officer even after receil report. Hence, it is presumed that the charge nothing to represent or submit against the all f ramed against him. rged Off icial r defend his d his case by I against the rt of enquiry d Official has cle of charge

5. In the light of above facts and after cors the relevant aspects of the case, I full agreed wit-r the Enquiry officer and the charge le'reled agairr official clearly and unambiguously stands proved. is grave in breach of discipline and amounts to 911 The individual overstayed on leave for a long per he did not report back despite all possible opp't offered to him. The misconduct committed by cf i remaining absent from bona fide duties witho l permission from the competent authority does r c the Charged Official and shows that he is n: performing his bonafide duties nor continuing in I to curb the tendency of the charged offlcial i overstayal from joining time for sr-rch a long per dealt firmly and deserves an exemplary punishr proof. deratlon of all the findings of ;t the Charged His misconduct ss misconduct. od. Moreover, rtunities being rged official in any leave or t speak well of : interested in ervice. Hence, r unauthorized cd needs to be rent with strict r' Y 5 SN, J wP 12748 2022 6, I therefore hold the charged official guilty of the article of charge framed against him. In exercise of powers conferred upon me under Rule-32 read in conjunction with Schedule-I with Rule- 34 (ii) of CISF Rules, 2001 and award him the penalty of "REMOVAL FROM SERVICE" with immediate effect upon No.091560102 Constable/cD Shailesh Kumar Mandal of CISF Unit BDL Bhanur.

7. The period of unauthorized absence in respect of No.091560102 Constable/GD Shailesh Kumar Mandal of CISF Unit BDL Bhanur w.e.f . 11.O7.2074 to 24.71.2014 for a period of 137 days will be regularized through a separate order after following the prescribed procedure.

8. No.091560102 Constable/GD Shailesh Kumar Mandal of CISF Unit BDL Bhanur is also informed that he may prefer an appeal petition against the above cited order if he desires so. The same should be addressed to the deputy Inspector General, CISF SZ HQrs., D-Block, Rajaji Bhawan, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 90 (Tamil Nadu) within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of th is order.

9. A copy of this order be supplied to No.091560102 Constable/GD Shailesh Kumar Mandal of CISf Unit BDL Bhanur receipt of which be acknowledged". (c) The or er, dated 29.O a.2OL7 oassed bv the Deoutv Insoe or General, SZ Head Ouarters, Chennai and tnDartacul a r ara Nos.4 to 7 are extracted hereunder:- 6 SN. J wP I27,18 2022 4. In the instant Appeal petition the Af lellant did not put forth any cogent reasons for preferri -l the instant Appeal Petition at such belated stage. He h s only stated that while on leave, he suddenly suffered se\ ere illness, as a result, he could not intimate his health cc ndition to the Authority and during his treatment at his ne tive place, he was Removed from the Service. Finally, he p r aded that due to various difficulties, his mental condition n; s not so good and he requested to excuse him this time a.r I take him on duty.

5. I have meticulously examined the ca; :. As per C1SF Rules, the aggrieved person should preli r his Appeal Petition within a period of 30 days from the late on which the Final Order was communicated to him. n this instant case, the Final Order was issued by t-: Disciplinary Authority on dated 16.06.2015, whic I has been acknowledged by him on 05.07.2015 at hi , native place through special messenger. The Appellant should have preferred Appeal Petition within 30 day:;, but he has preferred the Appeal Petition dated 04.07.2[ 17 after lapse of more than two years. In the Appeal Petition, the Appellant has not stated anything which pre\( nted him from filing the Appeal Petition within the stipulato, I time. Hence, am unable to condone the inordinate delay r,l more than 02 years in filing the AppeaIPetition and th€r=fore, without going into the merit of the case, I hereby REI :CT the Appeal Petition as TIME BARRED

6. This disposes oF the Appeal I etition dated 04.07.20t7 submitted by No. 09156010 2 Ex-Const/GD Shailesh Kumar Mandal of CISF Unit, BDL Bh: rur.

7. No. 091560102 Ex-Const/GD Shailestr Kumar Mandal of CISF Unit, BOL Bhanur is hereby inf rrmed that if aggrieved, he may prefer a Revision Petitlc n against this order as per Section-9 of CISF Act, 1968. (D) The relevant Dortion of the im uqned order T vide P .No.11O14 ( 1) /Aooea!/SK -BDL(B ) z L&R 7 2OL9-8922, dated 29.1O.2O SN, J wP t2'148 2022 the respondent No.3 to the oetitioner herein ioparticular para Nos.11 and L2 ar e extrccte(Lhereu nder: "11. CISF being an Central Armed Police Force of the Union, where discipline is of paramount importance, cannot afford to retain such in disciplined elements especially the one like the Appellant who had been overstaying on joining time for a prolonged period without any valid ground and later again overstayed on sanctioned leave. Hence, it was a fit case for REMOVAL FROM SERVICE Under the given circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority is found to have fully justified in deciding not to retain such a bad element in the Force as it would be cancerous to the very discipline and morale of the entire Force. I am, therefore, of the view that there is no ground to interfere with the orders passed by the Disciplinary authority at any stage. The penalty awarded by the Disciplinary Authority is found justified. There was no procedural lacuna either in the proceedings or in passing the impugned order. L2. As narrated above, in complained to the Judgment Order dated 25.07.2019 of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna. The Appeal Petition dated O4.7.2O17 of the Appellant has been taken into consideration afresh on merit and I do not find any congent reasons as discussed above, to interfere with the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority. As such, I considered the Appeal petition dated 04.07.2017 and REJECT the same being devoid of merit". .-t 8

5. Th r co sel a earrnq on t e SN, J wP 12148 2022 f of the Detitioner mainlv outs forth the fotlowinq su! missions: (i) The order irnpugned No.V-15014/(l SF/BDL(KB/B)/ DISC/ MA]-O1/SKM/20L5/3145 dated 16.06.2015 passed by the respondent No.4 is in clear violation of princi rles of natural j ustice. (ii) The petitioner explained the reason; for petitioner's absence for the period from Ol.O7.2OI4 to 1) 07.2014 i.e. a period of 137 days to the respondents. But how: rer the detailed explanation furnished by the petitioner had not teen considered and the order impugned had been passed. The trder impugned does not indicate that the absence of the petlt i rner was willful and deliberate and therefore, the impugned ord€ r is vitiated. (iii) The order impugned is dispropcr:ionate to the alleged misconduct. The penalty of remov: of service is u nwa rranted and vindictive. Based on the aforesaid submissiong, the learned counsel appearinq on behalf of the petitirner contends that the writ petition needs to be allowed a Draved for. 9 SN. J wP t2148 2022 6 On the other ha d. the learned stan n dino counse! n e followin lf of h ission ents m n ts fo (i) CISF being Central Armed police Force oF the Union, where discipline is of paramount importance, the petitioner,s indiscipline cannot be tolerated since the petitioner overstayed for prolonged period without any valid grounds. (ii) The continuation of the petitioner would be cancerous to the very discipline of the entire force and there was no procedural lacuna either in the proceedings or in passing of the impugned order. (iii) The penalty awarded by the disciplinary authority is j ustiFied . Based on the afo said submi srons, the learned standinq counsel aDoearinq on behalf of reso ndents that the writ oetition needs to be d ismissed. DISCUSSION A D CONCLU sroN

7. A bare perusal of the order impugned dated 16.06.2015 issued by the respondent No.4 admittedly as borne on record indicates that the enquiry against the t t0 SN. J wP 12748 2022 petitioner had been concluded ex pa,te on thr ground that the petitioner failed to attend the enquirr even after offering reasonable opportunities to the peti :ioner by the respondents. The same however had beerr disputed by the petitioner herein on the ground that the petitioner did not receive the notices pertaining to the conduct of enquiry. The charge framed against the p,r:titioner also indicates that the petitioner overstayed joirring time with effect from OL.O7.2O14 to 1O.O7.2O14 ar d the same tantamounts to serious misconduct, gros r indiscipline, dereliction of duty. This Court opines that the order of removal from service had been imposecl against the petitioner without there being a clear findin,l that the said unauthorized absence of the petitioner r,v rs willful or deliberate.

8. A bare perusal of the order impugned rassed by the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent No.3 dated 2 ).10.2019 also clearly indicates that the reasons furnished by t I I petitioner for unauthorized absence had not been considered cn the ground that if petitioner is retained in Armed Police Fo-:e, it would be cancerous to the very discipline and morale of , e entire force. v SN, J wP t274E 2022 The Appellate Authority upheld the order of removal, dated

16.06.2015 passed by the respondent No.4 against the petitioner herein vide order dated 29.10.2019 without applying its mind independently to examine the reasons furnished by the petitioner for his unauthorized absence ignoring totally the fact as borne on record that the disciplinary Authority did not arrive at a clear finding that the absence of the petitioner for the period

11.07.20L4 to 24.11.2014 i.e., for a period of 137 days had been deliberate or willful. 9 In the Judqment of the A ex court of India, in Civil I Aooeal No. 4531 of 2OO7, dated 13. Oa.2OOg between State of Uttarancha! and Others Vs. Kharak Sinqh. it is observed as under:- "11) From the above deeisions, the following principles would emerge : (i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. (ii) lf an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the Enquiry Officer, lf the said position becomes known after the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, during the enquiry, steps should \ Y1t\: - \ 12 SN, J wP t2'748 2022 be taken to see that the task of holding 6rt enquiry is assiqned to some other officer. (iii) In an enquiry, the employer/departmer t should take steps first to lead evidence agrrirst the workman/delinquent charged, give an oppor unity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the : nployer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent Lr asked whether he wants to lead any evidence anC tsked to give any explanation about the evidence lec against him. (iv) On receipt of the enquiry repor: before proceeding further, it is incumbent on th€ part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supp I r a copy of the enquiry report and all connected naterials relied on by the enquiry officer to enabl: him to offer his views, if any. In the oresent case, it is specificallv rl :aded bv the I ioner at v the petitioner in suoDo of the Dresent writ petition that petitioner did not receive any notice or lett :rs issued bv h the 4th res ondent and the oetitioner had nc, knowledqe of conduct of enquirv roqeedinqs bv the 4'r resDondent. This however had been disouted in the cotnter affidavit filedb vth e resDondents. but f ct remain:i as borne on record the orocedure ah d mtttedlv n ad not been ove e / "=v t3 follow dant he Dresent SN, J wP r274E 2022 D titioner b n -Da

10. T 3 e o x t o rt in its ud M nt e r r in Ol a a r das under: "32.....The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far reaching. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the ,means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulhess but it would make life impossible to live. And yet, such deprivation would not have to be in accordance with the procedure established by law, if the right to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to life. Thati which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life liveable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life. D Drivea Ders on of his rioht to ivelihoo d and vou sha ll have deori ed him of his 1ife...,.,, E l4 SN- J wP t2't48 2022 This Court a DDlvin the pri nciplles t e i ustice oDrn s that he Ex- cannot be the D unishment of rem ov lof oeti toner a d oetitioner's rl ht to be co tanued Con table i rte eno utrv r onducted rtm stno the _ mouqned service ac rinst riqht to life and the oeti roner ca nnot be deorived of the same rI violati on of the orocedure established bv Iaw. Detiti ner's h e 1 U

11. The Apex Court in the Judqment repor! rd in (2O12) 3 Suo mecourt Cases 178 in Krushn akant B. Parma r Vs. Union of India and Another verv clea rlv rbserved that when there ts no willful absenc€ on ttt, rDartof emol ovee in attendin DUnr shment of remova! from servtce ish 11 rhlv excessive and the sa e sho ld not be imoosed, re leva nt Nos.16 to 19. to his or d ties, I "16. In the case of the appellant referring to unar thorised absence the disciplinary authority alleged that he failed to m r ntain devotion to duty and his behaviour was unbecoming of a goverrr lent servant. The question whether "unauthorised absence from duty,,i mounts to failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a g > ,ernment servant cannot be decided without deciding the question rr' I ether absence is wilful or because of compelling circumstances. -(\ '*Y ///./ - l5 SN, J wP 1274A 2022

17. If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be willful. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean willful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his contro! like illness, accident, hospitalization, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a government servant. 18, In a departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is wittful, in the absence of such findang, the absence will not amount to m iscond uct. 19, In the present case the inquiry officer on appreciation of evidence though held that the appellant was unauthorisedly absent from duty but failed to hold that the absence was willful; the disciplinary authority as also the appe[ate authority, failed to appreciate the same and wrongly held the appellant guilty, In the Dresent cas admittedlv as borne on record, h edi ct etiti n willful f r the Deraod 11 .O7.2OL4 to 24.tL.20t4. L2. The Divisaon Bench of Hioh Cou of Andhra Pradesh arava hi m in 2O2 LD (AP) ( DB) oassed in W.P. N o.4O94O of 2015. dated 27.O7. O23 in D. Dundi Babu ( Died) and ot ers v E t6 S\' J \\P 12148 2022 Reqistrar, Central Administrative Tribunal a r rd others at particular oara Nos.21 and 22 observed as un1 er:

21. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that, i] the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it v as not possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be he d to be willful. absence from duty without any application or prior I ermission may amount to unauthorized absence, but it does not alw,r,s mean willful. There may be different eventualities due to whlch a I employee may abstain from duty, includirrg compelling circum; ances beyond circumstances beyond its control like illness, accldenl, hospitalization, etc., but in such case, the employee cannot be held cL ilty of fallure of devotion to duty or behavior unbecoming of a Governrn:nt servant.

22. In Krushnakant's case (supra), the Horr rle Apex Court further held that in a departmental proceeding, f allegation of unauthorized absence from duty is made, the discipl r ary authority is required to prove that the absence is willful, in r tsence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct. lr the said case, the disciplinary authority though recorded that the ap pellant was un- authorizedly absent from duty but failed to hold th;rl the absence is willful, it was held that the disciplinary authority as irl ;o the Appellate Authority wrongly held the Government servant guili The order of dismissal in that case and all the subsequent ord()r s of affirmation were set aside by the Hon'ble Apex Court". In the or sent case admittedlv as bor re on record e there is no clear Dositive findinq that a o sence of the petitioner drrrlns the said period with effect 1L.O7.2OL4 to 24.LL. O14 i.e. for a oeriod o 137 davs had t. been willfu a nd deliberate.

13. The Apex Court in a Judqment reoort_e d in the case Y SN, J w 12748 2022 of Manaoino Director, ECIL Hvderabad v B. Karunakar eDorted in 1993(4) SCC oaqe 727 at Daoe 28. 29 r observed as follows: '28. The position in law can also be looked at from a slightly different angle. Article 311(2) says that the employee shall be given a "reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the charges against him". The findings on the charges given by a third person like the enquiry offlcer, particularly when they are not borne out by the evidence or are arrived at by overlooking the evidence or misconstruing it, could themselves constitute new unwarranted imputations. What is further, when the proviso to the said Article states that "where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed", it in effect accepts two successive stages of differing scope. Since the penalty is to be proposed after the inquiry, which inquiry in effect is to be carried out by the disciplinary authority (the enquiry officer being only his delegate appointed to hold the inquiry and to assist him), the employee's reply to the enquiry officer's report and consideration of such reply by the disciplinary authority also constitute an integral part of such inquiry. The second stage fottows the inquiry so carried out and it consists of the issuance of the notice to show cause against the proposed penatty and of considering the repty to the notice and deciding upon the penatty. What is ( E l8 SN, J wP t2'748 7022 dispensed with is the opportunity of making repres('r tation on the penatty proposed and not of opportunity : making representation on the report of the enquiry o 1 cer. The latter right was atways there. But before the Frrr [y-second Amendment of the Constitution, the point of t'inrr at which it was to be exercised had stood deferred titl t re second stage viz., the stage of considering the penaltv Ti[t that time, the conc[usions that the disciptinary auth] ity might have arrived at both with regard to the guitt of ths emptoyee and the penatty to be imposed were onty tentativ:. Att that has happened after the Forty-second Amendmt: t of the Constitution is to advance the point of time at which the representation of the emptoyee against the enqtrl 'y officer's report woutd be considered. Now, the disciptina - authority has to consider the representation of the emp[oy te against the report before it arrives at its conctusion wit r regard to his guitt or innocence of the charges. Hence it has to be held that when tr I enquiry 29. officer is not the disciplinary authority, the r elinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of tr I enquiry officer's report before the disciplitrary authority lrrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innoc: tce of the employee with regard to the charges levelled ag tinst him. That right is a part of the employee's right o defend himself against the charges levelled against hi^ . A denial of the enquiry officer's report before the ( isciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges, is , denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to lrove his innocence and is a breach of the principles cf natural ) / Y t9 SN. J wP 12'148 2022 justice". u a tn the flncr les t n ti o tn that the alle ed absence of the Detitio ner w.e.t.Ll.O7.2OL4 to

24.L[.2OL4 for a oeriod of 137 davs cannot deorive h etiti ner's u occuoation when oetitioner admittedlv had been workinq as a Constable i n CISF since the vear 2OO9. L4. This Court in a iudoment reoorted in Raohubir S V, General Ma aoer. Haravana Roadwavs, Hissar at Dara s 3O in Civil ADDea! No.8434/ 2014. observed as follows : "35. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that it is important to discuss the Rule of the 'Doctrine of Proportiona lity' in ensuring preservation of the rights of the workman. The principle of 'Doctrine of Proportiona lity' is a well recognized one to ensure that the action of the employer against employees/workmen does not impinge their fundamental and statutory rights. The above said important doctrine has to be followed by the e m ployer/e m ployers at the time of taking disciplinary action against their employees/ workmen to satisfy the principles of natural justice and safeguard the rights of employees/ workmen". l!--iE;:- I

2.0 SN, J \tP t2748 2022 \ n alleqed ex mtnrn wh .......The appellant workman is a conducto in the respondent-statutory body which is an undertai: rg under the State Government of Haryana thus it is a potential employment. Therefore, his services could t ot have been disoensed with bv oassino an l'der of oror1rd of term i nation unauthorise d absence without c nsiderinq I .1 re leave !:r hc__-ls E OeS Or extraordi nary leave. Therefore, the order of t:-mination passed is against the fundamental rights guar. nteed to the workman under Articles t4, 16, 19 and .1 of the Constitution of India and agatnst the statutl.y rights conferred upon him under the Act as well as ir, ainst the law laid down by this Court in the cases referrec to sLrpra. This important aspect o1' the case has rot been considered by the courts below. Therefore, thc mpugned award of the Labour Court and the judgment & c r Jer of the High Court are liable to be set aside".

15. The erstwhile Hioh Co urt ilnent dated 27.O9.2O1O in Prameela a nd others v APSRI .! :, Hvderabad and others reoorted in 2O11(3) ALD 64 at Dara 13 in the Ju, I l observed as under: ".. "...Hence, it is exoected of everv disciplinary ! uthority to carefullv assess the ouantu m of quilt held esta blished a oainst the delinoue nt m o and then - ,nsider the Io I v 7t SN. J wP t2148 2022 ishment tha is to be imoosed . The choice of to meet the standards of fairness. unishment hen It shall not be too harsh or excessive or too lenient. It should fa ir dde uate ortionate. This h s a n apparently was not carried out bv either the disciplinary or the Aooell ate Authoritv . However. In inion for tha oart of the misconduct held established against Sri Pandu. perhaps. imposition of a minor ounishment of reduction of oav bv two staqes would have m t the ends of iustice".

16. The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the res pondents-Centra I Government placed reliance on the Judgment reported in (2()231 I SCC 1OO in Ex Seoov Madan Prasa d Vs. Union of India and Others and also the .Iudo ment of Division Bench of Aoex Court in Civil Aooeal No.246 ot 2OL7. dated 28.07.2O23 and contends that the petitioner is entitled for punishment of removal from service and hence, the same had been imposed against the petitioner and further the unauthorized absence of petitioner for 137 days amounts to gross indiscipline from a member of Armed Force and the same cannot be tolerated. L7. This Court oo anes that the Judoments the learned counsel aooearino lied uoon bv behalf of the resD onde nts/Ce ntra Govern ent do not a DD v the facts 22 \ SN, J \tP 12748 2022 of the oresent case a d the submisstons mar e-ln-rcIiar!9e of the me are held as untenable and henrI r, reiected in view of the fact as borne on record tt 1 rt the order t,3 I 29.1 o.2019 tmDuo ed Dassed bv the 3'd res Donden rele ino the AoDeal Petition of the Det rl ioner, datej o4.o7.2017 holdino t e same as devoid of m! rit uoholdinq the orders of 4th resoondent, dated 16.06. O15 issu ed to E le petitioner ll n Dosrno the oenaltv of Detition er without arrivinq at a clear finc in at the absence of the oetitioner w.e.f.11.O7.2O14 ! ) 24.1L.2OL4 for a riod of L37 davs had been deliberatr: or willful and emoval from Sel yice" oainst the Disciolina rv uthor tv i further aDDlvinq the orinciole doctrine of Drooo ionalitv to the facts of the oresent c a se, this Court oDines that the oen Itv of remov I of serrice i oosed J e petitioner the oetitioner is ha rsh ince I uDon h een w rki a n ince 2 Hence this Cou rto ines that oetitioner i, ; e ntitle d for a oo roDriate relaef in the oresent cas ;r ).

18. Takino into consideration --ri v 23 SN, J wP t27 48 2022 (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents, (c) The order impugned vide Proceeding No.V- 1 so 14lCrSF I BDL I (KB / B) DrSC/ MAJ- 01 I sKM I 20ts I 3L4s passed by the respondent No.4 and the order of the respondent No.3 vide Proceedings No.11014 (L)/ Appeal/ SKM-BDL(B) /SZl L&R/ 2O19, dated 29.1O.2019 confirming the order of the 4th respondent, dated 16'O6.2015. (d) The observations of the Apex Court and High Courts in various Judgments (referred to and extracted above), The writ Detit on is allowe as D raved for. The order imouqned vide Proceedinq No.V-15O14/ CISFI BDL/ (KB/B)DIS c/MAl-o 1 sK M l2 o 1 5l 31 45. dated 16 .o6.2015 ent No.4 and the order of the oassed bv the res resDon ent No.3 vide Proceedinos N o .1101 4 (Lll ooeall /

2.4 \ sz/ R/201 9-892 SN, J \\P t2748 2022 SKM-BDL B)/ dated 2 .10.2019 confirminq the order of the 4th resDondent a re set aside. r 5 rondent for att rts l r accordance tol aw, in confo rmitv with onnclDles of natl1al iustice bv orovidino an Doort nitv of oe rsona I he3 rino to the DE itioner and u rther, the 4th resoond ent DAss aDDr oDria reasoned orders (o6 ) wee s fro the ate of recei dulv comm unacate the decisi on to th ( Ho ever. there shall be no order astocosts. ;directed to w ithin a reri od of srx ofa cool of the order Detitioner,. The miscellaneous applications , pending if ir ry, shall stand closed. To //TRUE COPY/I SD/- S.I/I qLLIKARJUNA RAO AS(; STANTEEGISTRAR ,+ SECTION OFFICER Affairs, New Delhi.

1. The Secretary^, Union of lndia, Department of Home Aff I rs, New Delhi. 2. The Director Generat centrar rndListriar Security Force, \ inistry oir-iome 3. The lnspector General CISF SZ Head euarters, Chenn: . 4. The Senior Commandant. Cf g^F_ gli!, eOL, t<intninOa g, tydera bad 5. The D^eputy-Commandant CISF Unit eoL, enanui, Mei; < bistrict. -' -' 6. One CC to SRI MOHD M.U-MTAZ PASHA;Adtociie lorj Jq 7 gle cc to sRt R.MANGULAL, SC FOR CENIRAacC\ ERNI/ENT 8. Two CD Copies COUNSEL [OPUC] PSK - ,.-"r.aBrl HIGH COURT DATED:2711112025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.12748 ot 2022 l.: I ?d )r '-]: ,,,:.., :.:. i --L,/t,. :-\. ., ,::.. .\

1.,.1\S '',-\ ,\ {" a\ c*- J r:.,)l i:,j, .(-"; ;\ t-,{ t: ,',4"' " ,1.,t;*_.ii'- t't: ::ii: ' ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1o 'bo