The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.17117 of 2022 Rishi Ranjan Sharma …. Union of India & Ors. -versus- …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Adv. Opp. Parties Mr. D.R. Bhokta, CGC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 08.08.2025 Order No. 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order dtd.04.02.2015 so issued by Opposite Party No.5 under Annexure-3 and further order passed on 24.11.2021 under Annexure-7. 4.
Legal Reasoning
It is contended that Petitioner while continuing as a Constable in the CISF, he was issued with a notice on 23.09.2014 under Annexure-1 with a direction to report back in his duty immediately, otherwise appropriate application will be initiated against him. 4.1. It is contended that on receipt of such notice issued under Annexure-1, Petitioner though approached the concerned authority and intimated that he is suffering from various ailments, but without proper appreciation of // 2 // the same, Petitioner was issued with a notice on 18.11.2014 under Annexure-3, proposing therein to terminate him from his services taking recourse to the provisions contained under Rule-25(2) of the CISF Rules, 2001. 4.2. It is also contended that even though Petitioner submitted his reply to the same, but without proper appreciation of the earlier notice issued on dtd.23.09.2014 and the reply given to the notice under Annexure-3, Petitioner was terminated from his services vide order dtd.04.02.2015. Thereafter, Petitioner though made various application seeking his reinstatement but that was never considered and ultimately Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18346 of 2021. This Court when directed for consideration of the Petitioner’s claim for reinstatement vide
Decision
order dtd.07.07.2021, the same was rejected vide order dtd.24.11.2021 under Annexure-7. 4.3. It is contended that since Petitioner on the face of his illness, which was brought to the notice of the concerned authority, was terminated from his services vide order dtd.04.02.2015 under Annexure-4 and prayer for his reinstatement was also rejected vide order dtd.24.11.2021 under Annexure-7, the same requires an interference of this Court. Page 2 of 8 // 3 // 4.4. In support of his submission, reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors., in Civil Appeal No.2106 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.15381 of 2006, decided on 15.02.2012 and Ex. Constable Ashok Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors, decided on 24.05.2012 in W.P.(C) No.7098 of 1999. 4.5. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar in Para-20,22 and 25 has held as follows:- In the the present case “20. Inquiry Officer on appreciation of evidence though held that the appellant was unauthorisedly absent from duty but failed to hold the absence is wilful; the disciplinary authority as also the Appellate Authority, failed to appreciate the same and wrongly held the appellant guilty. xxx xxx xxx 22. In the present case, the disciplinary authority failed to prove that the absence from duty was wilful, no such finding has been given by the Inquiry Officer or the Appellate Authority. Though the appellant had taken a specific defence that he was prevented from attending duty by Shri P. Venkateswarlu, DCIO, Palanpur who prevented him to sign the attendance register and also brought on record 11 defence exhibits in support of his defence that he was prevented to sign the attendance register, this includes his letter dated 3rd October, 1995 addressed to Shri K.P. Jain, JD, SIB, Ahmedabad, receipts from STD/PCO office of Telephone calls dated 29th September, 1995, etc. but such defence and evidence were ignored and on the basis of irrelevant fact and surmises the Inquiry Officer held the appellant guilty. xxx xxx xxx 25. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned orders of dismissal passed by disciplinary authority, Page 3 of 8 // 4 // by Taking stands appellant reinstated. affirmed the Appellate Authority; Central Administrative Tribunal and High Court are set aside. The into consideration the fact that the Charged Officer has suffered a lot since the proceeding was drawn in 1996 for absence from duty for a certain period, we are not remitting the proceeding to the disciplinary authority for any further action. Further, keeping in view the fact that the appellant has not worked for a long time we direct that the appellant be paid 50% of the back wages but there shall be no order as to costs”. 4.6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ex. Constable Ashok Kumar in Para-2,44 has held as follows:- “2.Brief relevant facts to comprehend the controversies are that the petitioner while serving in the Central Industrial Security Forces (CISF) was posted at the Central Wrestling Team at Shakurbasti, Delhi. The petitioner was, thereafter, directed to move on 21st November, 1996 to report to IOC Mathura on 26th November, 1996. The petitioner, however, did not report on 26th November, 1996 allegedly on account of an injury on his right leg, suffered by him during the wrestling practice, because of which he remained absent from 20th November, 1996 up to 14th March, 1997, i.e. a total of 115 days without the alleged proper permission of the concerned officer. The petitioner also admitted that he had received the letters dated 20th January, 1997, 9th February, 1997 and 7th March, 1997 directing him to report to the IOC Mathura, but he could not do so since he was undergoing treatment for his injury. xxx xxx xxx 44. For the foregoing reasons, the orders of dismissal passed by the respondents dismissing the petitioner from service are set aside. The petitioner be reinstated forthwith with 50% of his back wages from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement. The petitioner shall, however, be given all other consequential benefits such as promotions etc. and there will be no discontinuity in the period of his service. The petitioner is also awarded a cost of Rs.10,000 which shall be paid by the respondents within four weeks. With these directions the writ petition is allowed.” Page 4 of 8 // 5 // 5. Mr. D.R. Bhokta, learned CGC along with Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI appearing for the Opposite Parties on the other hand contended that Petitioner while continuing on probation after his joining on 12.07.2014, was admitted in SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack on 07.08.2014 because of his ill health. But Petitioner when absconded from the Hospital and his whereabouts were not known, he was issued with the notice on 23.09.2014 under Annexure-1. 5.1. It is contended that no reply when was given to the show cause issued under Annexure-1, Petitioner was issued with a notice on 18.11.2014 under Annexure-3 in terms of the provision contained under Rule-25(2) of CISF Rules, 2001, proposing therein to terminate him from his services. 5.2. On the face of such notice, Petitioner never gave his reply, nor re-joined in his post. Accordingly vide order dtd.04.02.2015 under Annexure-4, he was terminated from his services in terms of Rule-25(2) of the Rules. 4.10. It is contended that after such termination from his services vide order dtd. 04.02.2015, Petitioner remained silent till he moved this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18346 of 2021, seeking his reinstatement, basing on a representation made by him on 14.01.2021 under Annexure-5. Page 5 of 8 // 6 // 4.11. It is contended that since Petitioner during his probation period absconded from the medical after his admission on 07.08.2014 and he never gave his reply to the notice issued under Annexure-1 and further notice issued under Annexure-3, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get any relief as prayed for. 4.12. Further submission was also made that even though Petitioner was terminated from his services vide order dtd. 04.02.2015, but Petitioner for the first time made a representation on 14.01.2021 seeking his reinstatement and alleging its non-consideration, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18346 of 2021. This Court when directed for re-consideration, the same was duly considered and rejected vide order dtd.24.11.2021 under Annexure-7. 4.13. It is contended that since Petitioner during his probation period and prior to completion of one month of probation, absconded after his admission in SCB, Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack on 07.08.2014 and he never gave his reply to the notice issued under Annexures-1 and 3, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the order of termination passed on 04.02.2015 so confirmed vide order dtd. 24.11.2021 under Annexure-7. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was engaged as a Constable in CISF Page 6 of 8 // 7 // on 12.07.2014 and the period of probation was two years. As found from the record, Petitioner was admitted because of his illness while under probation on 07.08.2014 in SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack. As the whereabouts of the Petitioner was not known after he absconded form the Hospital while under treatment, Petitioner was issued with the notice on 23.09.2014 under Annexure-1 to report back in his duty. 5.1. On the face of such notice, when Petitioner never come back to join, the 2nd notice in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-25(2) of CISF Rules, 2001 was issued on 18.11.2014 under Annexure-3. On the face of such notice issued under Annexure-3, when no reply was made nor Petitioner reported back to duty, Petitioner was terminated from his services vide order dtd.04.02.2015 under Annexure-4. 5.2. As found, Petitioner thereafter remained silent till he made a representation on 14.01.2021 under Annexure-5 seeking his reinstatement. When this Court directed for consideration of his representation, the same was rejected vide order dtd.24.11.2021 under Annexure-7. 5.3. Since Petitioner on the face of the notice issued under Annexures-1 and 2, never give his reply and Petitioner absconded while under treatment after one month of his joining in probation, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the action of the authority in Page 7 of 8 // 8 // terminating the services of the Petitioner taking recourse to the provisions contained under Rule-25(2) of CISF Rules, 2001. 5.4. Not only that the prayer for reinstatement was also made in the year 2021, which is more than 6 years of his termination. It is the view of this Court that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in not acceding to the prayer of the Petitioner for his reinstatement in service vide order dtd.24.11.2021 under Annexure-7 as the claim for re-instatement is a time barred claim. 6. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dtd.04.02.2015 as well as 24.11.2021 so issued under Annexures-4 and 7 and dismiss the Writ Petition. Subrat Judge (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2025 16:27:55 Page 8 of 8