Patna High Court
Santosh Kumar Rai vs The Union Of India And Ors on 1 May, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8388 of 2018
======================================================
Santosh Kumar Rai Son of Sri Shrikant rai, Resident of Village and P.O.-
Diyaman, P.S.-Krishna Brahm, District-Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union Of India
2. The Inspector General WS, Central Industrial Security Force Ministry of
home affairs. Keosun Com
3. The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force CISF DAE
Zonal Hors. ECIL Post, Hyd
4. The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force CISF Unit, DAE
Kalpallam, Kanchaeepuram, District
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nand Gopal Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mr. Amarrendra Nath Verma, Sr. Panel Counsel
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-05-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Union
of India.
2. The present writ petition seeks the following
reliefs:
"i) To quash the removal order dated
11.12.2006
issued by the Commandant, CISF Unit,
DAE Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu (Order No. 4767)
(Annexure-5);
ii) To quash the appellate order dated
05.05.2008 passed by the Deputy Inspector General,
CISF DAE Zonal Headquarters, Hyderabad (Order
No. 1633) (Annexure-7), and the revisional order
dated 04.01.2016 passed by the Inspector General
Patna High Court CWJC No.8388 of 2018 dt.01-05-2025
2/13
(W.S.), CISF, Navi Mumbai (Order No. 00044)
(Annexure-11), both upholding the penalty of
removal;
iii) To direct the respondents to reinstate
the petitioner in service with continuity and all
consequential benefits.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was appointed as a Constable (No. 014380541) in
CISF on 19.05.2001. While posted at DAE Unit, Kalpakkam
(Tamil Nadu), the region was struck by a tsunami on
26.12.2005. The petitioner was assigned rescue and recovery
duties, including handling dead bodies. After the rescue
operation, the petitioner did not feel well and applied for leave,
which was granted to him from 01.02.2006 to 15.02.2006, and
further granted paternity leave from 16.02.2006 to 02.03.2006.
It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the impact of tsunami rescue operation was so
deep in the mind of the petitioner that while availing his leave at
his native place, his family observed signs of abnormal
behavior. He was consulted a doctor who referred him to a
psychiatrist at Kanke, Ranchi, vide prescription dated
20.02.2006. Pursuant to medical advice, the petitioner visited to
Ranchi on 26.02.2006 and began treatment under a psychiatrist.
He was diagnosed with Schizoaffective Psychosis, a condition
Patna High Court CWJC No.8388 of 2018 dt.01-05-2025
3/13
requiring long-term treatment. The petitioner remained under
doctor’s care from 26.02.2006 to 08.03.2008 and, during this
period, was mentally unfit to make decisions, including those
related to his employment. The doctor at Ranchi issued fitness
certificate on 08.03.2008. However, he had already reported to
his unit in January 2008 intending to resume duty. There, he
came to know about of his removal from service. On requesting
the removal order, he was told it had already been sent. The
petitioner then submitted applications dated 09.01.2008 and
21.01.2008 via speed post to the Commandant requesting a copy
of the charge sheet, inquiry report, and removal order for the
purpose of filing an appeal. Thereafter, the removal order dated
11.12.2006 was eventually delivered to him by the local police
on 29.02.2008, sent under letter No. 384 dated 30.01.2008.
Learned counsel further submits that from the removal order it
transpirs that an ex parte departmental proceeding had been
conducted against him for overstaying leave and failing to
respond to call-up letters.
4. It is further submitted that prior to the passing of
the impugned removal order, the petitioner was never served
with the charge sheet, show cause notice, inquiry report, witness
depositions, or any other relevant documents. At the time of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8388 of 2018 dt.01-05-2025
4/13
inquiry, he was undergoing psychiatric treatment at Kanke.
Though the order claims that the charge sheet was served to his
mother at his father’s residence on 08.08.2006 (as it could not be
personally served), the petitioner was not in a mental state to
receive or respond to it. Thus, effective service of documents
and a meaningful opportunity to defend himself were absent.
5. Learned counsel further submits that upon
receiving the fitness certificate on 08.03.2008, the petitioner
promptly filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General,
DAE, Hyderabad on 25.03.2008, explaining that he was
mentally unwell and under treatment during the period of
inquiry. Hence, he submits that the proceeding was conducted
ex parte without serving him charges or giving an opportunity to
be heard and the same is void and unjust. The appellate
authority also, without due consideration of the petitioner’s
medical condition, dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel
further submits that the C.I.S.F. authority erroneously and
insensitively doubted the authenticity of his treatment, noting
that he was not admitted in a hospital and only visited the doctor
on 08.03.2008 to obtain a fitness certificate. The authority of the
C.I.S.F. also relied on two resignation applications sent by the
petitioner on 05.09.2006 and 05.10.2006, ignoring that these
Patna High Court CWJC No.8388 of 2018 dt.01-05-2025
5/13
were made while he was mentally unfit and under psychiatric
care.
6. The removal significantly worsened the petitioner’s
mental health, and he had to undergo further treatment from
04.08.2008 to 05.01.2015. As a result, he could not file a
revision against the appellate order within the statutory period.
On medical advice, he later submitted a representation to the
Hon’ble Home Minister, Government of India, narrating his
ordeal. This was treated as a revision petition by the Inspector
General, CISF, Navi Mumbai, who also rejected it without
adequately addressing the facts.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the entire disciplinary proceeding was fundamentally
flawed and not in accordance with established legal principles.
There is no evidence that the petitioner was served with critical
documents during the inquiry. Despite credible medical
evidence showing he was undergoing psychiatric treatment, the
authorities wrongly treated his ailment as fabricated.
8. Learned counsel refers to a similar case (C.W.J.C
No. 12635/2002), where this Hon’ble Court held that removal
from service in ex parte proceedings without serving charges
was illegal and quashed the dismissal order. It is submitted that
Patna High Court CWJC No.8388 of 2018 dt.01-05-2025
6/13
this precedent, among other relevant considerations, was
completely ignored by the authorities in the petitioner’s case.
9. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for
the petitioner relied on a judgemnt passed by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar V. Union
of India and Anr. Reported in 2012(3) SCC 178 :: 2012(3) SCR
484 and submits that absence from duty without any application
or prior permission may amount to unauthorized absence, but it
does not always mean willful and in compelling circumstances
beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalization, etc, but
in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of
devotion to duty or behavior unbecoming of a Government.
10. Learned counsel relied another judgement
rendered in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar
and Ors. reported in 2008(1) PLJR 449 :2008(1)BBCJ 504 in
which it has been held that a person cannot be punished for the
same offence twice.
11. Learned counsel further submits that this Hon’ble
Court in case of Mohan Pandey Vs. Union of India in CWJC
NO. 12635 of 2002 passed vide in its order dated 31.01.2005
whereby the Hon’ble Court pleased to set aside the punishment
order on the ground that when a proceeding is initiated notices
Patna High Court CWJC No.8388 of 2018 dt.01-05-2025
7/13
has to be issued and served upon the delinquent and where there
is nothing to show that notices were served and charge were
furnished to the delinquent then in that case the punishment
order shall not survive. In this background, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that the order awarding punishment from
removal of service by the Commandant (Annexure-5), order
passed by the appellate authority by D.I.G., C.I.S.F. and the
revisional order passed by the I.G. (Annexure-11), all be set
aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service with all
consequential benefits.
12. Learned counsel for the Union of India submits
that the present case is fit for dismissal as all the impugned
orders, namely, the original order, appellate order, and the
revisional order, have been passed strictly in accordance with
the provisions of the CISF Rules, 2001. It is further submitted
that three charges were levelled against the petitioner: Charge I:
The petitioner was granted 15 days of Earned Leave from
01.02.2006 to 15.02.2006 and 15 days of Paternity Leave from
16.02.2006 to 02.03.2006, along with two days’ permission on
30.01.2006 and 31.01.2006. However, he failed to report for
duty on 03.03.2006 upon expiry of his leave and continued to
overstay without any intimation or approval, which constituted
Patna High Court CWJC No.8388 of 2018 dt.01-05-2025
8/13gross indiscipline, misconduct, and dereliction of duty as a
member of an armed force. Charge II: The petitioner failed to
respond to a call-up letter dated 10.03.2006 and did not inform
the department about the change in his residential address. As a
result, official communications sent to his last known address
were returned undelivered. Charge III: The petitioner neither
responded to any official communications nor made any effort
to contact the office during his prolonged absence.
13. The CISF authorities decided to deal with the
matter under the relevant rules and issued a charge
memorandum via letter dated 12.06.2006 through the AC, CISF
Unit, FCI Dighaghat. The same was returned with the
information that the petitioner was staying with his father at
Chittaranjan (West Bengal) in the RPF Department. A CISF
official was then dispatched to locate the petitioner’s father’s
residence, where the petitioner’s mother was found, and the
charge memorandum was served upon her on 08.08.2006
(Annexure-4). Despite service of the charge memo, no reply was
received from the petitioner. Consequently, an Enquiry Officer
was appointed on 22.08.2006. The Enquiry Officer initiated
proceedings in accordance with CISF Rules, 2001, and provided
reasonable opportunities to the petitioner to defend himself.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8388 of 2018 dt.01-05-2025
9/13
However, the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry,
despite receiving enquiry notice No. 492 dated 31.08.2006, as
acknowledged in Annexure-5. The enquiry was therefore
conducted ex-parte. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on
16.11.2006 to the Disciplinary Authority, and a copy was served
to the petitioner with instructions to submit a representation by
10.12.2006 (Annexure-7). The petitioner failed to respond, and
the penalty of “Removal from Service” was imposed vide
Final Order dated 11.12.2006 (Annexure-8).
14. Learned counsel for the Union of India further
submits that while overstaying on leave, the petitioner sent an
application dated 05.09.2006 vide fax to CISF Unit DAE
Kalpakkam, addressed to the Unit Commander. In the
application, he stated that due to division of ancestral property
and concerns for its upkeep, he wished to resign from service in
the interest of his family’s welfare (Annexure-9). In response,
the department, through Office Letter No. 3432 dated
07.09.2006, rejected his resignation, instructing him to appear
for the departmental enquiry and submit a clearance certificate
thereafter (Annexure-10).
15. Subsequently, the petitioner again sent a fax dated
05.10.2006 to the Unit Commander, referring to a recent
Patna High Court CWJC No.8388 of 2018 dt.01-05-2025
10/13
communication asking him to report physically to the unit for
resignation processing. Instead of reporting, he requested two
more months’ time citing domestic problems (Annexure-11).
This request was also rejected, and the petitioner was again
directed to appear for the departmental enquiry and submit a
clearance certificate before any resignation request could be
processed (Annexure-12).
16. Learned counsel for the Union of India further
submits that despite four call-up notices and two messages, the
petitioner failed to report for duty. It is emphasized that in none
of his applications did the petitioner mention any illness or
disclose his whereabouts. Had he genuinely been unwell, the
same would have been communicated to the department. His
conduct reflects a lack of interest in continuing service.
17. Learned counsel for the Union of India further
submits that the final removal order was passed on 11.12.2006.
The petitioner filed an appeal only in March 2008, which was
rejected by the appellate authority on 05.05.2008. Thereafter, he
submitted a representation dated 21.05.2015 addressed to the
Home Minister, which was treated as a revision petition. The
Reviewing Officer, Inspector General, CISF WS Headquarters,
Navi Mumbai, found no new or relevant facts and rejected the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8388 of 2018 dt.01-05-2025
11/13
revision on 04.01.2016 (Annexure-14). A legal notice dated
19.09.2017 was also responded to, with the department
clarifying that the petitioner had exhausted all remedies
available under CISF Rules.
18. It is further submitted that it is incorrect for the
petitioner to now claim non-receipt of departmental materials.
Letters concerning his resignation were duly served, including
one delivered in person to his mother. Four notices were also
sent by registered post. No illness due to the tsunami was ever
reported during the relevant period; this excuse was raised for
the first time in appeal and supported only by a local doctor’s
note, which was rightly rejected for lack of authentication by a
government medical officer.
19. The judgment in Krushnakant B. Parmar (supra)
is not applicable as the petitioner’s case does not involve
hospitalization, accident, or any proven medical condition.
Similarly, Sanjay Kumar (supra) is irrelevant, as the petitioner
has not been punished twice for the same offence. Prior conduct
was only referenced to show habitual misconduct. The case of
Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad (supra) is also distinguishable. Unlike
that case, here there is clear evidence of service of notices and
other communications, including acknowledgment of receipt
Patna High Court CWJC No.8388 of 2018 dt.01-05-2025
12/13
and two resignation letters from the petitioner himself.
20. After hearing the parties and perusing the
documents on record, it transpires to this Court that both the
Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority have duly
considered the case of the petitioner. The records indicate that
notice was served upon the petitioner through his mother. Prior
to the passing of the final order, the petitioner had also sent two
registered letters to the concerned authority. This Court, upon
examining the reasoning provided by the Revisional Authority,
finds that the petitioner did not raise before the departmental
authorities the plea he now seeks to raise before this Court. No
documents have been produced to substantiate his claim
regarding his son’s illness and burn injuries. Further, although
the petitioner contends that he was ill due to the tsunami, no
medical report from any Government doctor or hospital has
been filed to support this claim. This is particularly significant
considering that, as a member of the force, he had access to
treatment at local government or departmental hospitals.
Instead, the petitioner has submitted a report from a private
medical practitioner, which the authorities have rightly declined
to accept due to lack of corroboration by any government
medical institution. Moreover, the judgments relied upon by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.8388 of 2018 dt.01-05-2025
13/13
petitioner rendered in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar,
Sanjay Kumar (supra) and Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad (supra)
are distinguishable on facts and do not help the petitioner’s case
in any manner.
21. In conclusion, order passed by the Commandant,
CISF Unit DAE Kalpakkam (Order No. 4767 dated 11.12.2006,
Annexure-5), the appellate order passed by the Deputy Inspector
General, CISF DAE Zonal Headquarters, Hyderabad (Order No.
1633 dated 05.05.2008, Annexure-7), and the revisional order
passed by the Inspector General (W.S.), Navi Mumbai (Order
No. 00044 dated 04.01.2016, Annexure-11), are all valid, legal,
and sustainable as they were passed in accordance with the
CISF Act, 2001 and relevant rules.
22. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 08/05/2025 Transmission Date NA
[ad_1]
Source link