GUWAHATI, India, Nov. 12 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Oct. 12:

1. Heard Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC representing the respondent/Union of India.

2. The present application, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assails an order dated 31.12.2004, by which the petitioner was removed from service.

3. The fact in a nutshell is that while the petitioner was employed as a constable driver under the CRPF was on earned leave for a period of 60 days w.e.f. 20.11.1995 to 18.01.1996. As he had not resumed his duty thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 06.04.1996 was issued to the petitioner proposing an enquiry in respect of two charges.

4. The essence of the first charge brought against the petitioner is that on expiry of earned leave on 18.01.1996, the petitioner overstayed without any leave or permission from the competent authority and till the date of the charge-sheet, i.e. 06.04.1996, he had not resumed duty. The second charge against the petitioner is that, upon the expiry of his leave, he had not resumed his duties and had retained the Government kits allotted to him, as well as his Identity Card, which constitutes misconduct.

5. Along with the charge memo, a list of documents on the basis of which the charges were sought to be proved, as well as a list of the witnesses proposed to be examined, were enclosed.

6. The petitioner filed a reply, stating that he could not resume duty upon the expiry of his leave due to pressing domestic problems. As his domestic problems persisted, the petitioner offered to resign from service. The petitioner in the aforementioned letter also agreed to deposit the Government kits allotted to him, as well as his identity card, in due course.

7. The matter could have rested there, given the resignation proposal. Be that as it may, the disciplinary authority appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner.

8. Though it was the stand of the employer that the enquiry officer issued several notices informing the petitioner of the dates of the proposed enquiry and requiring his presence in the enquiry, the petitioner contended that none of the aforesaid notices were served on him. He did not know the dates of the enquiry.

9. The enquiry proceedings were thereafter held ex parte, and at the conclusion thereof, the enquiry officer, by reports dated 21.06.1996 and 23.09.1996, held that both charges against the petitioner had been established. A copy of the report of enquiry along with the show cause notice proposing the penalty of removal from service was stated to be issued to the petitioner on 21.11.1996, and though the petitioner received the said documents, he did not respond, whereafter by final order dated 10.12.1996, the penalty of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner.

10. After several attempts to have the order of removal from service recalled and rectified, the petitioner approached this court by filing WP(C) 3511/1999, assailing the final order dated 10.12.1996, which imposed a penalty of removal from service. In the meantime, in a court of enquiry instituted under Rule 31 of the CRPF Rules by order dated 26.03.1996, the petitioner has been declared a deserter with effect from 19.01.1996.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=Wvv66Dud4dpqZq8Ja%2B1FGDpRjP767%2Fr6tJjG0J6lLmzpo43MRYgkrl0CVIeuBtPP&caseno=WP(C)/5831/2011&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010194612011&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.