R. Annadurai v. Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 23.07.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. MURUGESANANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN W.P.No.5603 of 2004R. Annadurai .. Petitioner Versus1.Director General, Central Industrial Security Force,C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, South Zone, 'D' Block, Rajaji Bhavan, Chennai.

Group Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, South Zone, 'D' Block, Rajaji Bhavan, Chennai. .. Respondents Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent dated 24.04.2002 in his appellate order No:V-11014/25/2002/L&R(SZ)/3216 confirming the order passed by the third respondent dated 17.01.2002 in his final order No:V-15014/03/2001/GHC/AD.VI./329 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to take the petitioner into the strength of CISF with all monetary benefits. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Md. Ibdrahim Ali For Respondents : Mr. M.Jegadeesan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDERC.S.KARNAN, JThe learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner joined as constable, in the CISF on 06.04.1988 and had undergone basic training at CISF Training Centre, Bokaro from06.04.1988 to 26.12.1988.

On the said charges, the defendant has submitted Writtenstatements on 14.09.2001, denying the articles of charges framed against him under rule 34 of CISF rules. But, the third respondent has ordered enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer conducted enquiry and submitted his report holding that the articles of charges I & II were proved beyond any doubt. Based on the enquiry report, the third respondent has passed the final order awarding the punishment of dismissal from service on 17.01.2002.Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the second respondent on 22.02.2002, enclosing all the original Medical Certificates along with the appeal grounds. Thesecond respondent has also rejected the appeal on 24.04.2002 stating that the petitioner has not placed any extenuating circumstances that warrant any interference in the order passed by the third respondent.

Aggrieved by the orders of the Respondent, the petitioner filed this above Writ petition to call for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent dated 24.04.2002 and quash the same.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents denied the allegations of the petitioner. The respondent contended that the petitioner's conditional bail to sign at Guindy Police Station, Chennai was modified and the petitioner was directed to stay at Madurai and report before the Madurai Tallakulam Police station daily once at 10.00hrs., until further order vide order dated12.10.2000. In the above order, there was no specific period from17.10.2000 to 11.12.2000 mentioned and thereafter as per order dated01.12.2000, the Honourable Court relaxed the directions of the order dated 12.10.2000 and petitioner was not required to sign or report to any police station after 01.12.2000. The petitioner reported at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ unit only on 21.12.2000, though the Honourable Court totally relaxed the conditional bail with effect from 01.12.2000. Further, as requested by the petitioner, to make convenient for him to attend the Court at Tirunelveli and to respond the summons received in connection with criminal case, he was posted to CISF Unit, TuticorinPort Trust, Tuticorin. The Headquarters of the petitioner during suspension was changed to CISF Unit, TPT, Tuticorin vide Commandant, CISF Unit, FSTPP, Farakka Order No.V15014/FSTPP (FCI) CISF/2001/3086dated 13.06.2001. Accordingly, the petitioner was relieved fromCISF Unit, FCI/NCP with effect from 15.06.2001 (AN) vide movementOrder No. E38020/CISF/Mo(out)/FCI (NJP)/2001/1595 dated 15.06.2001.

The respondent further contends that as per charge of Article I, for overstayal leave for 212 days from 23.05.2000 to20.12.2000 and as per charge of Article II, for his failure to produce relevant medical documents in support of his treatment as directed to him vide his earlier unit's letter dated 25.05.2000, on joining the duty on 21.12.2000, he was awarded punishment after duly constituted departmental enquiry. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry giving ample opportunities to the charged official to defend the case. The enquiry officer found that as per statement of PW1,PW2 and PE3 and PE4, the charged official failed to report for duty even after the lapse of medical unfitness period due to his alleged involvement in a murder case. Even though he was acquitted in the murder case, the departmental proceedings as per statement of PW1and PW2, clearly established that the charged official miserably failed to produce the documents which are required in support of his treatment for proving his innocence, despite giving ample opportunity till passing final order in the proceedings, and accordingly the petitioner was awarded with the penalty of dismissal from service. The respondent found that the charges against the petitioner for 212 days of overstayal of leave without permission from the competent authority, was held to be proved by the enquiry officer. Similarly, the second charge with regard to the failure of the petitioner to produce the medical documents in support of his medical treatment for overstaying leave was also accepted by the respondent.

The respondent further contends that the offence of 212days overstay of leave without any permission from the respondent by the petitioner is very serious in nature. In the instant case, the petitioner was sanctioned 15 days earned leave from 08.05.2000 to22.05.2000. On completion of leave, he was supposed to report back to the unit for duty on 23.05.2000. But he failed to do so and senta telegram to the unit requesting for extension of leave alleging that he was suffering from Typhoid fever. Subsequently, the medical certificate, advising him for medical leave from 20.05.2000 to14.06.2000, was sent to the unit. After consideration of medical certificate, the Assistant Commandant, directed the petitioner to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ report for duty immediately after recovery of illness along with amedical fit/unfit certificate, necessary prescription, copy of the bill for purchase of medicines, blood test report and other relevant documents in support of his treatment. The petitioner failed to produce the same. Further, the respondent contended that the petitioner had failed to put forth any cogent reasons or reliable documents to prove his innocence.

Considering the contentions of both the sides and the arguments of the counsels for the respective parties, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has not established his case.

The petitioner has not given any explanation as to why he did not produce the medical certificate to the authorities from the time he was asked to do so i.e., 25.05.2000 to the time he was remanded to judicial custody on 12.06.2000. Also the petitioner was granted bail on 24.08.2000 and was asked to report at Guindy PoliceStation everyday. No explanation is tendered by the petitioner asto why he did not give the relevant documents to the concerned authorities between this date ie., 24.08.2000 and the date on which he reported to Tallakulam Police Station on 17.10.2000 nor has he offered any explanation as to why he did not give the medical documents between the period from 17.10.2000 to 11.12.2000, when he was at Tallakulam, Madurai. It was only on 21.12.2000 that he had reported to New Jalpaiguri, West Bengal and again there is no explanation given by the petitioner as to why he did not send the documents and other certificates during this period ie., from11.12.2000 to 21.12.2000. Further, though the railway reservation ticket has been produced in his affidavit, the petitioner has failed to ensure with clarity that the ticket was purchased for him.

Considering all the above facts, this Court feels that the punishment given to the petitioner is not disproportionate to the gravity of the offences committed by him. The respondents have acted in a fair manner and given the petitioner adequate opportunities to prove his innocence but the petitioner has failed to do so. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings in the said case and hence the above Writ Petition inW.P.No.5603 of 2004 is dismissed. There will, however, be no orderas to costs. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. Registrarmra https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TO1.The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force,C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.2. The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, South Zone, 'D' Block, Rajaji Bhavan, Chennai. 3. The Group Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, South Zone, 'D' Block, Rajaji Bhavan, Chennai.BVN(CO)km/4.8.W.P.No.5603 of 2004