V.Rajendran v. The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, C.G.O.Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi & Ors

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 07.04.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMYW.A.(MD).No.218 of 2011and M.P.No.1 of 2011V.Rajendran : AppellantVs.1.The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, C.G.O.Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Avadi, Chennai 600 065.3.The Commandant, 42 Bn, CRPF, Old.K.V.Building, Barkas, Hyderabad 05.4.The Adjutant, 42 Bn, CRPF, Old.K.V.Building, Barkas, Hyderabad 05. : RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent againstthe Order dated 18.11.2010 made in W.P.(MD).No.3440 of 2010 on the file ofthis Court. WP.No.3440 of 2010 : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the recordsrelating to the order passed by the 4th respondent in his order No.P.VIII-1/10-EC II/42 dated 16.02.2010 and quash the same in so far as the portionrelating to the rejection of leave application and initiating disciplinaryaction is concerned and to direct the respondents to pass order on theapplication submitted by the petition on 28.05.2009.For Appellant: Mr.A.S.Mujubur RahmanFor Respondents: Mr.C.Ramachandran Central Government Standing CounselJUDGMENT[Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.SUGUNA, J]This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 18.11.2010 madein W.P.(MD).No.3440 of 2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

22. The said Writ Petition was filed challenging the order dated16.02.2010 insofar as it relates to rejecting the leave application andalso indicating the initiation of disciplinary action as against theappellant. Besides, the other prayer made in the Writ Petition is to directthe respondents to pass orders on the application submitted by theappellant dated 28.05.2009 for voluntary retirement.3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the factsleading to this case are as follows:-(i). The appellant had joined in the second respondent establishment on31.10.1987. Subsequently, he was transferred to the unit of 42 BattalionCRPF Campus, Secunderabad on 11.10.2009. While he was working so, he hadreceived a telephone call on 11.12.2009 alleging his involvement in aCriminal Case. He had applied for leave. But, leave was not sanctioned. On14.12.2009, after sending a letter to the third respondent, he had left theBattalion. Subsequent to this, he was mentally depressed and he could notreport for duty and he was also taking treatment, consequently he was notable to rejoin duty.(ii). By letter dated 16.12.2009, intimation was given by the thirdrespondent to the wife of the appellant informing that the appellant wasabsconding from 15.12.2009 and First Information Report was also lodged asagainst him and further directing his wife to advise her husband to reportfor duty, failing which, disciplinary action will be initiated as againstthe appellant.(iii). Thereafter, on 29.01.2010, in this regard, the wife of theappellant had also received another letter from the third respondent.Again, a similar communication was sent to the wife of the appellant.However, he had not rejoined duty, consequently, the order impugned in theWrit Petition was passed. Challenging the said order, the appellant hadfiled the said Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge of this Court, byorder dated 18.11.2010, had dismissed the said Writ Petition. Challengingthe said order dated 18.11.2010, the present Writ Appeal is filed.4. The stand of the learned counsel for the appellant is thatinitially, the appellant had submitted application seeking voluntaryretirement and no order was passed on the application submitted by him.Since the appellant was suffering from mental depression, he was not in aposition to rejoin duty. According to him, he had availed leave only aftersubmitting leave application. 5. On the other hand, it is the stand of the learned Central GovernmentStanding Counsel appearing for the respondents that the appellant hadjoined the present unit only on 11.10.2009 and he had deserted the unitwith effect from 15.12.2009, consequently, according to the learned CentralGovernment Standing Counsel, question of submitting application seekingvoluntary retirement prior to joining the present unit does not arise atall and the application said to have been submitted by the appellant byRegistered Post was not received by the concerned unit. On 16.12.2009 acharge memo was sent to the wife of the appellant with regard to hisdesertion. It is the specific stand of the learned Central GovernmentStanding Counsel that in spite of communication sent through his wifedirecting him to report for duty, the same was not responded to, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3consequently, in accordance with the Rules and Regulations applicable tothe respondents – CRPF, the order dated 16.02.2010 was passed by the thirdrespondent. Apart from this, according to the learned Central GovernmentStanding Counsel, as per the averment in the counter affidavit, already, byorder dated 07.03.2010, the appellant was declared as "deserter" witheffect from 15.12.2009. In spite of repeated reminders, the appellant hadnot reported for duty. Basing on this, according to the learned CentralGovernment Standing Counsel, a warrant of arrest is also pending execution,and therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the relief sought for.6. We have considered the above submissions made by the respectivelearned counsel.7. It is the stand of the learned counsel for the appellant that theappellant had sent leave application before leaving the battalion on14.12.2009. However, it is not the case of the appellant that without evensanction of leave, the appellant can be permitted to leave the battalion.Mere submission of leave application is not sufficient to avail leave. Suchleave has to be sanctioned by the authority concerned. The learned counselfor the appellant has not brought to the notice of this Court any Rule,whereby on submitting leave application alone, one is entitled to get leavenor deeming provision, wherein, it is stated that on submission of leaveapplication itself, leave is deemed to have been granted. Apart from this,the appellant was serving in an army force, where Rules and Regulations areexpected to be followed strictly.8. As far as the stand of the learned counsel for the appellant thatsince the appellant was mentally depressed, he was not in a position to goand report for duty is concerned, as rightly pointed out by the learnedCentral Government Standing Counsel, even as per the Medical Certificateproduced by the appellant, which has been enclosed in the typed set ofpapers, there is no mention about the disease, i.e., mental depression,with which the appellant was suffering. As per the said Medical Certificateproduced by the appellant also, the appellant is eligible for leave onlyfrom 23.01.2010 to 27.01.2010, i.e., for a period of four days. Apart fromthis, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant thatsubsequent to this, intimation was given by the official respondentsdirecting the appellant to report for duty. Consequently, the stand of thelearned counsel for the appellant that either leave has to be sanctioned orthe respondents have to refer the appellant to the Medical Board so as tosend him out of service on the ground of medical invalidation will not holdgood. Apart from this, the said Writ Petition was filed by the appellanthimself. If the appellant is so ill, we are not able to understand as tohow he is the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the WritPetition. 9. As far as the request of the appellant to permit him to go onvoluntary retirement is concerned, as per the stand of the learned CentralGovernment Standing Counsel, if the appellant intends to go on voluntaryretirement, an application should have been made, but the application, saidto have been sent by the appellant, seeking voluntary retirement, was notreceived by the third respondent and a copy of the application is also notenclosed in the typed set of papers. However, the appellant had filed onlythe understanding certificate given by him, which reads as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4"I No.871162179 CT/GC V.Rajendran of Hqr Coy, GC CRPF,Avadi, has been explained in details about the likelyhardship. I may face in this uncertain and economic age, aftermy proposed Voluntary retirement from service due to domesticproblems/unavoidable circumstances."10. Even assuming that the appellant had sent application seekingvoluntary retirement, an acknowledgment should have been sent by the thirdrespondent. However, there is no acknowledgment available in the typed setof papers filed by the appellant. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Appeal fails and the same isdismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition isclosed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (P & A)/True copy/Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To1.The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, C.G.O.Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Avadi, Chennai 600 065.3.The Commandant, 42 Bn, CRPF, Old.K.V.Building, Barkas, Hyderabad 05.4.The Adjutant, 42 Bn, CRPF, Old.K.V.Building, Barkas, Hyderabad 05.+1. CC to M/s A.S.Mujibur Rahman, Advocate, Sr.No.12983+1. CC to M/s C.Ramachandran, Advocate, Sr.NO.13009NBJUDGMENT MADE INW.A.(MD).No.218 of 201107.04.2011TR : 03.05.2011 : 4p/7c