Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, July 1: Observing that an employer is not supposed to launch a manhunt for an absconding employee across the world, High Court upheld the order of dismissal of services of a constable of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), who had challenged his termination from service.
“An employer is not expected to launch a manhunt for an absconding employee in the whole world. It is enough if an employer sends the communications to an absconding employee at his residential address. That is what has been done by the Enquiry Officer in the present case”, Justice Sanjay Dhar said while holding the enquiry held by the department against the delinquent constable as valid and reasonable.
The petitioner Mohammad Shahbaz Mir had challenged his termination order on the ground that the enquiry was not held properly while passing the order of termination against him. Petitioner-Mir was appointed as a constable with the CRPF in 1997 and posted in the 181 Battalion. He proceeded on leave from August 3, 2011, to August 30, 2011, but did not return to duty. Mir claimed that psychological disturbances and chronic marital discord caused him to overstay his leave.
His counsel argued that dismissal, issued on December 3, 2012, was in violation of natural justice principles and the procedure prescribed under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules. He also contended that all communications, including the dismissal order, were in Hindi language which the petitioner claimed not to understand. The Court turned down Mir’s claim of not understanding Hindi, noting that he had previously communicated in Hindi for leave applications and appointment orders.
The respondent-department resisted the arguments advanced by the petitioner counsel and submitted that Mir had overstayed his leave without permission and ignored multiple requests to report for duty. They detailed the steps taken to apprehend Mir and the subsequent departmental inquiry that led to his dismissal.
The court after perusal of the record said the petitioner has not placed on record any material to show that there were any emergent domestic issues being faced by him at the time when he actually deserted the Force.
“Court said the petitioner could have even physically informed the Commandant about his domestic problems. Instead of doing so, he chose to keep himself away from his duties and did not even care to inform his superiors about the reasons for his not joining the duties”, reads the judgment.
The Court further found that the CRPF adhered to the prescribed procedure under Rule 27 (c) of the CRPF Rules as multiple communications were sent to Mir’s residential address, giving him ample opportunity to participate in the inquiry proceedings.
Even after his apprehension while his application for discharge from service was under consideration, he again chose to desert the Force.
“In such a situation, the petitioner cannot expect anything other than dismissal from service from his employer. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated”, court concluded.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
