news details |
|
|
| DB holds Desertion in Forces a Grave Misconduct, Dismissal Justified | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Aug 26: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the dismissal of a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) constable, terming desertion in uniformed services a serious act of indiscipline warranting stern punishment.
A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Srinagar Wing Comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed LPA, filed by Nasir Ahmad Parray, 43, of Uri, Baramulla, who had challenged his removal from service in 2007 after being declared a deserter.
Parray, appointed as a constable in the CRPF's 84 Battalion in 1994, failed to resume duty after his sanctioned leave ended in December 2005. Despite repeated notices, registered communications, and even a warrant through the SSP Baramulla, he did not rejoin service. A departmental inquiry subsequently declared him a deserter, leading to his dismissal on February 26, 2007.
Adv Nisar Ahmad Bhat, argued before the Division Bench that his absence was due to deteriorating health and that the departmental proceedings violated principles of natural justice since he was allegedly not informed.
Appearing for the Union of India and CRPF, Mr. Tahir Majid Shamsi, Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Ms. Rehana Qayoom, Advocate, countered that the appellant willfully absented himself and was even found running a garment shop near his residence during the period of absence. It was further submitted that all codal formalities, including service of notices and conduct of departmental inquiry, were strictly followed.
The Bench noted that Parray was duly informed through multiple notices and messengers, and his plea of illness was unsubstantiated as available prescriptions showed he was only treated as an outpatient.
Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court stressed "Members of uniformed forces cannot absent themselves on frivolous pleas. Desertion is a serious matter. Dismissal in such cases is justified and cannot be described as disproportionate."
Finding no procedural infirmity or illegality, the High Court ruled that the punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct. The appeal was dismissed as "devoid of merit."
(JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
