# Bhanu Pratap Pandey v. Union of India and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 860
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-07-31
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44755 of 2003
- **Bench:** Bharti Sapru
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhanu-pratap-pandey-v-union-of-india-and-others-40666
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.226-Removal
from Service-Scope of interference by
writ court-Petitioner while posted in
Nagaland
as
Constable
in
C.R.P.F.-
without permission-deserted the dutyremain absent for 36 day-despite of
three opportunity to explain his conductfailed
to
explain-before
disciplinary,
appellate
as
well
before
revisional
authority-if
retained
in
force-wrong
signal will go to other members of forcewhose prime duty to protect the Nation
and
its
citizens-Held-deserves
no
sympathy-punishment of dismissal fully
justified.

Held: Para 13

I am firm in my mind that a member of
any disciplined Force has to confirm to
discipline even to the extent of making
sacrifices for the nation which he takes a
responsibility to serve. The petitioner
was a member of the disciplined Force
was posted in a sensitive area, failed to
maintain the discipline and the trust
imposed upon him. I am of the opinion
that he deserves no sympathy and I am
also finn1y of the opinion that he has
been given a fair opportunity at three
stages for defending himself. The three
orders passed against him are well
considered and in my opinion are correct
and deserve no modification from this
Court. The punishment imposed upon the
petitioner is fully justified in the-facts
and circumstances of the present case.

## Text

860 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
Petition is devoid of any merit, and is
accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.

 Petition Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.07.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BHARTI SAPRU, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44755 of 2003

Bhanu Pratap Pandey

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Raj Narain Pandey
Sri K.D. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri. B.N. Singh
Sri Dhirendra Kumar Dwivedi
S.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art.226-Removal
from Service-Scope of interference by
writ court-Petitioner while posted in
Nagaland
as
Constable
in
C.R.P.F.-
without permission-deserted the dutyremain absent for 36 day-despite of
three opportunity to explain his conductfailed
to
explain-before
disciplinary,
appellate
as
well
before
revisional
authority-if
retained
in
force-wrong
signal will go to other members of forcewhose prime duty to protect the Nation
and
its
citizens-Held-deserves
no
sympathy-punishment of dismissal fully
justified.

Held: Para 13

I am firm in my mind that a member of
any disciplined Force has to confirm to
discipline even to the extent of making
sacrifices for the nation which he takes a
responsibility to serve. The petitioner
was a member of the disciplined Force
was posted in a sensitive area, failed to
maintain the discipline and the trust
imposed upon him. I am of the opinion
that he deserves no sympathy and I am
also finn1y of the opinion that he has
been given a fair opportunity at three
stages for defending himself. The three
orders passed against him are well
considered and in my opinion are correct
and deserve no modification from this
Court. The punishment imposed upon the
petitioner is fully justified in the-facts
and circumstances of the present case.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Bharati Sapru. J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner Shri R.N. Pandey and also
learned counsel for the Union of India
Shri D.K. Dwivedi at length.

2. The present writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner against three orders
dated 18.4.02 (Almexure-3), order dated
12.11.02 (Annexure-5) and the order
dated 17.7.03 (Annexure- 7) passed by the
respondents No.2,3 & 4. The first order is
an order passed by the disciplinary
authority. The second is an order passed
by the appellate authority and the third
order is passed by the Revisional
Authority, by which, the punishment of
removal of service has been imposed
against the petitioner under the C.R.P.F.
Act, 1945.

3. The facts of the case are that the
petitioner was posted as a Constable at
Dimapur (Nagaland) which is a sensitive
and terrorist affected area.

4. The petitioner was charged with
desertion on 8.11.01 for having left and
deserted
his
duties
without
due
permission and leave from the competent
authority. A departmental enquiry was
2 All] Bhanu Pratap Pandey V. Union of India and others
861
held
against
the
petitioner
on the
following charges:-

"That No. 900240065 C1 (Bug)
Bhanu Pratap Pandey of A/123 BN,
CRPF at Dimapur, Nagaland committed
an act of misconduct in the discharge of
duties in his capacity as a member of the
Force under Section 11 (1) of CRPF Act,
1949 in that he deserted on 08.11.2001 at
18.30 Hrs, without any permission/leave
from the competent authority."

5. The plea as set-up by the
petitioner before the departmental enquiry
was
that
the
petitioner
received
information from his home that his wife
was very seriously ill and on receiving
this information, he applied for leave but
even though leave was not granted he had
to reach, because his wife was so sick. He
also took a plea that he spoke to the
Commandant over telephone to appraise
him on the urgency.

6. It is a undisputed fact and not
denied by the petitioner that he remained
absent from duty for the period from
8.11.01 to 27.12.01, i.e., 36 days. Before
the disciplinary authorities, the petitioner
produced two medical certificates, one
showed that his wife was suffering from
spondylitis and the other showed that his
wife was suffering from viral fever. A
departmental enquiry was set -up in
accordance with the rules and orders of
the Force. During the enquiry, the charge
framed against the petitioner was found
proved beyond any shadow of doubt.
Keeping in view of the fact that the
petitioner belongs to a disciplined force
and keeping in view of the gravity of
offence committed by the petitioner, he
was
dismissed
from
service
w.e.f.
18.4.02.
7. Being aggrieved with the order of
the Commandant, the petitioner submitted
an appeal on 24.5.02 to the D.I.G. of
C.R.P.F., Allahabad. The D.I.G. of
C.R.P.F. considered the appeal of the
petitioner and rejected the appeal of the
petitioner on 12.10.02.

8. Against the appellate order dated
12.10.02, the petitioner filed a revision
which was also a remedy available to him
under the Rules to the I.G.P. C.R.P.F.,
Central Sector, which was rejected by the
order dated 17.7.03 of the authority
aforesaid.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has argued that the punishment imposed
on the petitioner is too harsh and a
simpathetic view should be taken of the
matter. The petitioner according to him
had to rush to attend his wife who was
seriously sick.

10. The second argument of learned
counselor the petitioner was that before
the
pendency
of
the
disciplinary
proceeding, he was granted a transfer to
Allahabad and was permitted to join on
13.12.01 from Nagaland, which implied
that his act of desertion was condoned by
the authorities concerned. However, it is
not denied by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the transfer order was
subsequently
cancelled
once
the
disciplinary proceedings ensued.
L
11. Learned counsel for the
respondent has argued that the petitioner
belonged to a disciplined force and the act
of desertion, which the petitioner was
charged, was found proved against him by
not one but by three authorities who gave
him due opportunity of hearing and
examined the matter thoroughly before
862 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
coming to the conclusion that a person
who was found guilty of an act of
desertion in a disciplined force could not
be retained in the Force as that would no
doubt, send a wrong signal to the other
members of the disciplined Force and it
would also break the morale of the
disciplined Force whose prime duty is to
protect the nation and its citizens.

12. Having heard both the parties
and having gone through all the pleadings
and material evidence on record as well as
three orders impugned by the petitioner, I
am of the opinion that the impugned
orders do not contain any error. In fact,
the impugned orders have been passed
after giving to the petitioner not one but
three good opportunities to explain his
conduct. All the three orders are well
considered. All the three orders have
considered each and every submission
made by the petitioner in his defense. The
orders clearly reveal that firstly the illness
of the wife of the petitioner was not such
a serious one. Secondly, it reveals without
doubt that the petitioner left without
taking due permission. The orders also
reveal that on no stage, permission was
granted to the petitioner and he remained
absent
for
36
days.
The
medical
certificates which have been appended by
the petitioner and on the record do not
reveal that the illness of the wife was so
serious as it was a matter of life and death
which had to be attended immediately.
Even, if it had been a matter of life and
death, then too the petitioner who
belonged to a disciplined force should
have awaited permission for a minimum
period before leaving his duty.

13. I am firm in my mind that a
member of any disciplined Force has to
confirm to discipline even to the extent of
making sacrifices for the nation which he
takes a responsibility to serve. The
petitioner
was
a
member
of
the
disciplined Force and was posted in a
sensitive area, failed to maintain the
discipline and the trust imposed upon
him. I am of the opinion that he deserves
no sympathy and I am also firma1y of the
opinion that he has been given a fair
opportunity at three stages for defending
himself. The three orders passed against
him are well considered and in my
opinion are correct and deserve no
modification
from
this
Court.
The
punishment imposed upon the petitioner
is
fully
justified
in
the-facts
and
circumstances of the present case.

14. The writ petition is devoid of
merits and dismissed. There will be no
order as to costs.
 Petition Dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.07.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI, J.

First Appeal No. 179 of 2001

(Arising out of Suit no. 41 of 1997 Smt.
Manju Rai and another Vs. Vinod Kumar
Rai, decided on 23.4.2001 by Ist Addl.
District Judge, Ghazipur)

Vinod Kumar Rai ...Appellant-Defendant
Versus
Smt. Manju Rai ...Respondents-Plaintiffs

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Faujdar Rai
Sri C.K. Rai
Sri S.K. Upadhayay
Sri Brij Raj Singh
Sri R.P. Singh