High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. 3

1. The Commandant, Central lndustrial Security Force, CISF Unit, SCCL (S)' BEllampally Hqrs, Andhra Pradesh. i#}|[rii inipd"to, Generif cintrat tndustriat security Force, south sector HOrs, Chennai - 600 090. iil lhiplr?iji cenerjr, Centrat lndustrial Securitv Force, South sector HQrs' Chennai - 600 009. UliiJ'""otlniiilhep. pv its $ecretary, Mlnistry of Home and Affdrc' Governmentbf lndia, New Delhi. As oer Court order dated 7.3.2025 vide lA N tio.'tieolzoOS Respondent No.4 is deleted. O.1t2017 in WRIT PETITION ...RESPONDENTII Petition undqr Article 226 qf the Constitutian of lndia praying that in tho circumstanceq stat9d in the affidavit filed therewith' the High pourt may tro pleased to issue order qr directipn, more particularly in the nture ol Wrlt of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No 1 in passing the order of Removal from service vide orders dated 30-3-2001 vide Proc No V-15014/CI$F/SCCL/MAJ/RKPl2K and the consequential orders dated 1Q'3' 2006passedbyRespondentNo.2videProc.NoV-'15014/ANU/Appeal' 24IPRM:2OO5 20oE/159, orders dated 16.9-2008 passed by the Respondqn! NO.3 vide Proc. lrlo. V-14013/Rev/PartSSl2OOB-2255 rejecting the Appeal and Revisiononlyonthegroundthattimebarredasitlegal'arbitrary,violativeof Article 14, and 21 of the constitution of lndia and violative of principles of Natural Justice and violative of Sections B(ii) and 8(i) of the CISF Act and violative of Rule 19 of CCS (Leave) Rules of 1972 and consequentially direct the ;ww Respondents to r( instate the Petitioner into servicr-, w th irll consequential benefits fronr the i ate of removal to till date Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. S. P. SURESH KUMI\R

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: SRI MD ABDUL. MATEEN QURESHI REPSRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR DY. SOLICITOR GENEFIAL OF II{DIA The Cqurt made tne following: ORQER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITIONNo. 1386 of2OO9 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to declard the action of respondent No. 1 in passing the removal order dated 30.03'2001 vide Proc.No.V-15014/CISF/SCCL/MAJ/RKPl2K arld the consequential orders dated 10.03.2006 passed by respondent No. 2 vide Proc. No.V- I 50 1 / ANU/App eal-24 I PRMr / 2005'06 I 159, orders dated i6.09.2008 passed by the respondent No.3 vide Proc.No.V- 14013/Rev/par I SS I 2OOB-2255 rejecting the appeai and revision only on the ground that time barred as illegal and to dircct the respondents to re-instate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits from the date of removal to till date.

2. Heard both sides. Perused the record

3. Petitioner was selected as a Constable on 15.06.1994 and rendered service for 3 years in the Cochin Shipyard, Cochin and latc transferrecl to CISF Unit, SCCL, Singareni artd he was sanctioned 15 days casuai leave from 19.04.2000 to 03.05.2000 ancl while he was on leave he went to his home and he fell sick 2 drLt.y :re obtainecl !e(.,-o- qt[ kG$r'1 on O I rl5. l()00. When he contacted tl e llr,:.ors he was inforrr r:rl ttat he was infected with Tul:crculor is and was hospit:lize,l in Dtstrict Government Hospit,al, Ccrlkhpur. He was ult:rbir: o apply for further extensron b r^ts o[ 1er,.,t. and his wife submir.._,:d .tr: sqm€ on 13.06.2000 and hc ilcc ,ht: copv of thc W same. 'Whr rr he became fit to rejoin rr+to fitness certiricate on 04.12.2004 and h : :rprpr oached the Respor rient J )cpartment on 07. 12.2OOq anri l_rr. ca le to knorr,, that he ,.i ai, t.emoved from the service. Resl ron,ir:n s ordered a Discipl nar., linquiry and passed a final order b-,i respondent No. 1 se t tir-r5, , he petitioner as exparte and r em,rvrn g him from service ,,'.e f 30.03.200 1_ Shou, causc nor icc \r1; issuccl to him. l{er lierl an appeal on 0i.06.200ij .rlcng with an applicatior'. ,r condone thc clela1, and to set asr,1r: the removal order arrcl Llr:: same u,as dismissed or-r l t ] .0(r. 2 O 16 on the ground thal ' t€) time barred by upholding t he fina I orders of responden,.,'i : 1.

4. Per_,1i,:r'r:- also filed W.p.No.ssBB3 of 2LtO6:..rnc the same was disrjiss( rl on 10. !0.2006 on the ground ,lf v,zr1r1 territorial 3 jurisdiction. He preferred a revision before respondent No'3 on 2l.O7.2OOB and the same was rejected on 16'09 2008' Petitioner also lield med ica-1 prescriptions issued by the Government Hospital, medical certificate and fitness certificate Thc petitioner came to know about the removal order only when he joined the duty. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the removai order.

5. In a counter filed by respondents, it is stated that as per Ieave Certificate dated 19.04.2000 issued to him and he was supposeci to report for duty on 04'05.2000 (FN) after availing the sanctioned leave. Area Commander, RKP area issued 03 call up notices and it was also acknowledged by him' Petitioner was directed to report to the duty otherwise, action will be initiated against the petitioner for his unauthorized over stay on lcave. As per the postal acknowledgements received back by Lhe Unit, petitioner had acknowledged Annexure R3 and R4, but the petitioner did not report to the duty. Later charge memo was issued on 14.10'2000 and it was also sent to his permanent addr-ess through registered post with / 4 { ackn l\\'le,l E ment axd hc acknowledged the sarne cn 28.10.2000 a]ld r. iv.:|; received by the Office on 10 11.200 1. Later the Deputl' (- r,,nrn--r4arrt framed articles of ch l-p1i against the petitioncr ;r-rcl the same \vas sent to the pr:titt:r,r: .. As per the postat a ci:D o$.1edgment, it was received lrr. tltc oetitioner on 09.1'2 2cto -). Inquiry officer also issued nor.ice to rhe petitioner to apltear b efore the Inquiry Officer bJ, lixrr q I te dates for conduc1.in1. )epartmental enqurry on 20. j ),.2AOO 10.01 .200 I and 30, O 1 .. 0O 1 respectively. petitioner ack nor,. le 1 3ecl first a,,d seconc ltot t,res only and thrrd notice v as l_€rt -lrneci back undelir":rer, u-ith an endorsement .,the adr1r.c.s see is not available ,at I is home inspite of repeated visLts,, ..\; he did not appear refore the authority, he lr,as removed liorr :;< rvrce. After 3 1./z ltr.ar:,. he submitted an application ,ru 07.12.2OO4 requesti:L5r t( take him to duty and in turn il rr i:s nlbrmed to the pet itiorr,: r. that he was removed from ijol vice rnr.e.f. 30.03.2,:,01 . After a iapse of six months. he pr eferred appeal. .{1,:r n after a submittr:C a t.r,1zisi6n and the same was reje<:ted stated that. tlr,r petitioner was granted lapse of more thzrn i.i,o years, he It is further 15 dr,ws F)err nerl Leave : 5 w.e.f. 19.04.2000 on the grounds his \rife serious' but not casual leave as claimed by the petitioner. The wife of the petitioner had not sent application to the Unit informing about the ill-health of the petitioner and extension of any leave. If the petrtloner was rea1ly suffering from Tuberculosis, it is his responsibility to inlorm the Department about his ill health duly supported by documentary proof, but not by his wife. The well equipped SCCL Malagement Hospital is available at RKP area where the petitioner would get proper medical care, but he has not reported at the Unit to take medical treatment without obtaining aly permission from the Department overstayed at his native place on his own wish. It was also observed that he lailed to file an_v documentary proof to show that he was suffering from Tuberculosis and was bed ridden and that the doctors advised him bed rest.

6. The copy of thc final order rvas also sent to his native address ald it was returned with an endorsement petitioner was not present at the address and another copy was sent through Officer in-charge, Chahjanawa Police Station, 6 Groakhpur' )istrict, U.p. It is for the peti-ior- cr ,o rnform his rn'here: l:,:r_ ' s to the department whener.er hrs arddress is chang:d b - t he failed to do so. While disl:,osinq r,f the appeal dated O.l r.r! 2665, thc appellate author.i --r, jrad askcd thc petitio r,,:r' , s,bmit the legible copies of mer,lica certificates ar-td aJterr' l reit the appellate authority founc thl t.re petittoner had obtaLrrc rl the said certificates as his r,$,n c.rl,aclt_v as no supporlir-Lg cocuments likc medicar pr-esr_.r)rioils, cash memo/ tills; lrrr purchase of medicines, lal-, p6p61_ s and thev were forrnd , rclosed. 7 . Ad:rrir.t::111., the petitioner was joinerr a.,: rl tnstablc in CISF, ttLcrr1.,1r he applied for 15 days, he dirt nor rr:port to the dutl' til i2r)(. - and simpry stated that his r,vi fe is in ir r-icarth and later he r-rfr_r rned about his illness and as ar.r cnr ltlc vec rt is for him to infc,L-r L about the illness to the M:rnai1e.r.n lltt ancl to submit :1-,:)l-)rr - leave application on medicaj gr: 'l n 1s, but he failed tc, rlc .,, ,. Instead of receiving sevcrai rro.t:i,ri regard ing enqulry, hr: rlrd not respond and not filed n:.edicr certificates and not irclm j _ ed in the hospital ol the Respo.rdenL i,,epartment \ 7 and fina-liy reported Lo the duty in the year 2004 along with some medical record and {itness certificate. This clearly shows that there is gross negligence on the part of the petitioner. The Department aiready granted several opportunities to the petitioner but the petitioner did not evince any interest. Therefore, this Court finds that the present writ petition 1S devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed B. 'i In the result, this rvrit petition is dismissed. No costs Mrscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed To,

1. One CC to SRI 2. One CC to SRl. |NDIA [OPUC] 3. Two CD CoPies BM BS I I I I I i //TRUE COPY// SD/.K.BHAVANI SWAMY SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER P. S. P. SURESH KUMAR, AdV GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. S OL te IOPUCI ICITOR CEruCREI OT I I .1,,i, t i I'i 4r€ C.( I t/ Bt,$t"t \l;ro({,is: -t )A-'Ctr EA HIGH COUt?"'r DATED:09 ttC4t202i ORDER WP.No.1,386 of 2009 DISMISSING 'rHE WRIT PETITION WITHOU"r COSTS p ,?b1''. /,/4- { //