The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Ms.R.MADHAVI LATHA' rep" SRI S'KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR' DY'SO'GEN sRl' BABULAL MUKERJEE' rhe court made the r.,,.*,rn,tiBEI'?'-i" "/ THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.467 OF 20to JUDGMENT: (.Per tlw Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice liujog paut) Ms.R.M:rrlhavi Lath.a, learned counSel reyrresenting Sri S.Krishna, :.earned counsel for the appellant ancl Sri Gadi Praveen Kumerr, learned Deputy Solicitor Genera l of India, assisted by Sri Babulal Mukherjee, learned counst:l for the 'iespondents.

2. With the ':,rnsent finally heard.

3. This intra-Court Appeal questions the order passed by the learned Single .ludge in WP.No.78 of 2002, dated 12.03.2O10, whereby, the Deputy Inspector General of police (D.I.C .), CRPF, Hyderabad, has exercised the power under Rule 29id) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (for s hort ,.the Rules, 1955") ,:nhanced the punishment of remo izai from servlce.

4. The admilted facts between the parties that the appellant was served u-ith a charge sheet dated l4.1O.1ggg for unauthorized absence/desertion of seryice for a perio,l of l7l days. The charges were proved in the enquiry and the rrppellarrt :r.: 2 was inflicted with the punishment of reduction of his pay by one stage for three years with cumulative effect' The appellant had unsuccessfully assailed this order by preferring an appeal' which came to be dismissed on 20.1 1.2000'

5. During annual inspection, the D'I'G' exercised power und.er Rule 29(d) of the Rules, 1955 and served with a notice of show-cause dated 14.08.200O to the appellant showing his *intention to enhance the punishment' In turn, the appellant submitted his reply on 15.09.2000' Thereafter, the D'I'G' vide impugned order dated 30.10.2000 enhanced the punishment of removaf from service.

6. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the said punishment before the learned Single Judge in WP'No'78 of 2OO2. The learned Single Judge came to hold that the Rule 29(d) of the Rules of 1955 gives power to the revisional authority to enhance the punishment. The procedural part is meticulously followed and the punishment cannot be said to be d.isproportionate in nature and therefore, declined interference' J CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT: 7 . Learnecl counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant prel-erred the appeal against the punishnrent order which was dismissed. on 20.11.2000. After that, it wa; not open to the revisio,zrl authority to enhance the punishm,:nt. It is further argued that the revisional order is passed b,:yond the period of six rn onths. The punishment is disproportionate is last contention on the strength of judgment of this Court in Union of India v. C.V-Khadekarr and the judgment ol supreme Court in Angad Das v. Union of Indiaz. CONTENTIONS oF RESPODNENTS:

8. Learned l)eputy Solicitor Genera_l of India for the respondents supported the impugned order of thr learned Single Judge a nd the punishment order and urged that the procedural formalities were meticulously followed. T here was no breach of principles of natural justice. The order .rs passed by the competent authority. The punishment is comm ensurate the misconduct. The appellant belo ngs to ' wA.No.74q ot2009. da,ed t7.02.2022 ' (2010 J Supreme Coun CJses 46.] 4 disciplined/uniformed force and the unauthorized absence of 171 days is a major misconduct. No interference can be made' FINDINGS: t) It is settled that the scope of interference by the Writ g . Court in the disciplinary proceedings is timited' The interference can be made if there is palpable, procedural irregularity and breach of principles of natural justice, which has resulted. into prejudice to the appellant' Interference can also be made, if the findings are frivolous and ultimate punishment imposed' is irregular, disproportionate ' Apparel Export Promotion Council v' A'K'Chop1ae) If the present matter is examined on the aspect of procedural fairness' it will be clear that the Rule 29(d) empowers the authority to enhance the punishment after putting the delinquent employee to notice regarding the proposed enhancement' The procedural part is duly taken care of by the competent authority' Learned counsel for the appellant could. not point out any statutory bar of limitation beyond which said power could not have been exercised. It was faintly argued that the revisional authority (See ' 1999 (l) scc 759 5 could not have exercised the power beyond six montlLs. But no provision aborrt statutory time limit could be pointed ,rut. n

10. The judgment of Supreme Court in Angad Das (supra) makes it clear that the delinquent employee preferred a simple letter of request for re_employment, which was considered and treated as an appeal by the competent. authority and accordingly, he enhanced the punishment. Slnce such letter was not t:reated to be an appeal by the Supre ne Court, the conseqner.rt action of D.I.G. of police by treatinl; it as al appeal was interfered with. In the instant case, the r:ompetent authority has exercised its suo motu power flowing jiom Rule 29(dl of the Rr-rles, 1955 and therefore, the judgment of Angad Das (supra) is o1'no assistance.

11. Another judgment in WA.No.749 of 2OO9 is relied upon, wherein the punishment was held to be disproprtrtionate. In our opinion, the period of unauthorized absence is r normous in nature. The aspect of unauthorized absence for the purpose of deciding quantum of punishment is considered by ()ourts in catena of judgmr:nts. It is apposite to consider certain relevant judgments. The Division Bench of Madhya pradesh High Court 6 in Badshah Singh v. State of M.P.a considered unauthorized absence of 35 days of a member of Armed Force ald opined that punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate. The Apex Court in Union of India v' Manoj Deswals opined that unauthorized absence of 108 days is sufficient for passing order of discharge. In Union of India v' EX.No.6492O86A SEP/ASH Kulbeer Singh6, it was clearly utreld that unauthorized absence in Armed Force for considerable period is serious misconduct and dismissal from service is not a disproportionate Punishment.

12. In this view of the matter, the judgment of this Court cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is of no assistance'

13. If the present matter is examined in the backdrop of aforesaid principles laid down by the Courts, the inevitable conclusion would be that the unauthor2ed absence of the 'unauthorized appellant is enormous in nature and such absence in disciplinary force calnot be easily bruShed aside' In other word.s, we are unable to hold that punishment is shockingly disproPortionate. 'zot2 scc ontine up 5391 5 lzote; ts scc st t lzorey t: scc zo u 7

14. In absence thereof, we find no reason to interfe:-e with the order of the le:rrned Single Judge in W.P.No.78 of 2OO2, dated.

12.O3.2010

15. The Wril Appeal sans substance and is hereby dismissed. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also //TRUE COPY// SO/-M.M JULA DEPUTYREG TRAR I SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI S KRISHNA' Advocate tOPUCl i[?::,n*1,."S,L[TY:F,]J:Yy]'1tl?sBtYo'o'3"J'3t5""n"rarorrndia)' Two CD CoPies stand closed t) To, 1 2 3 BSK LS Vq HIGH COURT DATED:2610312025 n JUDGMENT WA.No.467 of 2010 /1/,\ i/i L: iHL t f4r (- Jk{ 25 AfB m ?! i) \sg o() ,1.r cH * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1o l4 [25