Blog

The Petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the dismissal order dated 21st 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was enrolled in CRPF on 11 July 2021 and seeking his reinstatement in service, and the same issue was held in the judgement passed by a division bench judge HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, in the matter CT/GD MAHAKAR V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. dealt with an issue mentioned above.

The petitioner will also seek directions to the Respondents to change the Petitioner’s punishment to ‘discharge’ instead of ‘dismissal’ from service and/or allow the Petitioner to take voluntary retirement or grant compulsory retirement in the starting stage itself,

Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner was enrolled in CRPF on 11 July 2021. He states that the Petitioner requested, for grant of casual leave from 07th September 2019 to 20^th.  September 2019 to undergo treatment for his deteriorating health condition. The petitioner was granted casual leave for the said period.

Petitioner was still critically ill and he had duly informed the unit authorities regarding his health condition and also furnished his medical documents as proof of his unstable health condition, however, the authorities failed to appreciate the same and instead directed him to report back to the unit immediately.

It was found that the perusal of the paper book reveals that two departmental enquiries were conducted against the Petitioner simultaneously. While one was for producing a fake educational certificate, the other was on account of overstay of leave, even after knowing that the Petitioner was found guilty in both the departmental enquiries, yet the punishment of dismissal was imposed on the ground that the Petitioner had produced a fake educational certificate.

In the present writ petition, the Petitioner had challenged the departmental enquiry which was initiated on the ground of over-stay and desertion, It was also pertinent to mention that no medical certificate has even been enclosed along with the present writ petition.

The court perused the facts and argument’s presented, it thought that- “In fact, this Court is of the view that the petitioner had overstayed leave/deserted his post for nearly one and a half year to avoid giving any response to the allegation of submitting fake educational qualification. The omission to deal with the allegation of submission of fake educational qualification in the present case is not an innocent one, but a part of the ‘strategy’ that had been adopted by the petitioner right from the time the disciplinary proceedings had commenced. Consequently, the request of counsel for the petitioner for withdrawal of the present writ petition is declined and the writ petition along with pending application being bereft of merit, is dismissed”.

Click here for judgment

Judgment Reviewed by: Mandira BS