2025:JHHC:24781 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 2819 of 2005 ---------- Prabhat Rabi Ojha, son of Sri Murlidhar Ojha, resident of Raja Para, Pakur, P.O. Pakur Nagar, District Pakur (Jharkhand). ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 2. The Inspector General, C.I.S.F. Head Quarter, Patliputra Colony, Patna. 3. The Deputy Inspector General, C.I.S.F. Head Quarter, Patliputra Colony, Patna. 4. Unit Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit PTPS Patratu, P.S. Patratu, District Hazaribagh. ………. Respondents. ---------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. K. Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI Ms. Niki Sinha, CGC ---------- C.A.V. on 03.07.2025 Pronounced on 19/08/2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the charge-sheet dated 18.09.1998; order of removal dated 31.05.1999 and the order dated 15.07.2002, by which the request of petitioner for reinstatement has been rejected by the Commandant, CISF Unit, PTPS, Patratu. Petitioner has also assailed appellate order dated 21.10.2002, passed by the D.I.G., Eastern Zone, CISF, which rejected the appeal preferred against the order of removal and also the revisional order dated 23.06.2004, which sustained the order of punishment of removal. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as Constable in CISF on 27.01.1986. On 07.03.1998, the petitioner applied for 6 days earned leave on the ground of family treatment and submitted undertaking that in case he fails to join duty after expiry of leave, necessary disciplinary action may be taken against him. The petitioner was granted 3 days leave from 09.03.1998 to 11.03.1998 with permission to avail permissible leave 2025:JHHC:24781 2 and was supposed to join the duties on 16.03.1998 but he failed to do so and overstayed after sanctioned leave unauthorizedly. Thereafter, a call-up notice dated 24.03.1998 was sent to his native place by Registered Post with A/D, directing him to report to the Unit immediately. The petitioner reported on 29.04.1998, after overstayed leave from 16.03.1998 to 28.04.1998 i.e. total 44 days. Again, the petitioner deserted from duty from 12.05.1998 and hence, a call-up notice was sent directing him to report for duty immediately but he failed to do so. Thereafter, a 2nd call-up notice was sent on 18.07.1998 but the same was returned back with postal note ‘petitioner was out of station’. On 30.07.1998, a 3rd call-up notice was sent but the same was also returned back with the postal note, ‘petitioner was out of station’. Finally, on 14.08.1998, the petitioner reported to CISF Unit, PTPS, Patratu after remaining unauthorized absent for 94 days. 3. For the said act of the petitioner, a departmental enquiry under Rule-36 of the CISF Rule, 1969 was initiated vide memorandum dated 18.09.1998 on the following charges:- ARTICLE OF CHARGE - I An act of gross misconduct, indiscipline, dereliction of duties and disobedience of lawful order of the superior in that No.863020069 Constable P.R.Ojha of CISF Unit PTPS Patratu has fully overstayed from leave w.e.f. 16.03.1998 to 28.04.1998 without any valid permission from the competent authority. Thereby he exhibited an act of unbecoming of good member of an Armed Force of the union within the meaning of Section 18 of the CISF Act, 1968. ARTICLE OF CHARGE-II An act of gross misconduct, indiscipline and dereliction of duty on the part of the said No.863020069 Constable P.R.Ojha of CISF Unit PTPS Patratu in that he deserted from the unit lines on 12.05.1998 and remained un-authorized absent from duty till 13.08.1998 without any valid permission from the competent authority even ignoring the instructions issued to him vide call up notice sent to him at his known address which were returned to this office undelivered as he did not disclose his whereabout. This act on the part of the said Constable P.R.Ojha is highly prejudice to the good orders and discipline of the member of the Armed Force of the Union. 2025:JHHC:24781 3 ARTICLE OF CHARGE- III Continued act of gross misconduct and indiscipline on the part of the said No.863020069 Constable P.R.Ojha of CISF Unit, PTPS Patratu in that he even after being punished four times for his negligence and indiscipline activities in the past, he did not show some sign or improvement in his conduct and repeatedly involved indiscipline activities proving himself to be incorrigible. As such his past conduct will be taken into account for determination of quantum of punishment to be awarded while disposal of this case. 4. On 27.09.1998, the petitioner again deserted from duty and did not turn-up even after sending call-up notices and remained absent without leave till removal from service i.e. 31.05.1999. Hence, the enquiry against the petitioner was started and notice in this regard was sent to his native place by Registered Post directing him to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 23.10.1998 but he failed to appear. On 29.10.1998, second enquiry notice was issued to appear on 10.11.1998 but the petitioner did not turn-up. Again on 08.03.1999, 3rd notice was sent directing him to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 19.03.1999 but this time also petitioner did not turn-up. All the notices sent to the native place of petitioner returned undelivered with postal note that ‘petitioner is out of station’. As such, the enquiry was conducted ex-parte and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority (Commandant, CISF Unit PTPS, Patratu), after going through the enquiry report, passed the order of removal from services w.e.f. 31.05.1999. 5. Thereafter, petitioner filed an appeal for reinstatement in service before the Deputy Inspector General, Eastern Zone, Patna (Appellate Authority). The petitioner also filed a petition dated 18.06.2002, before the Commandant, CISF Unit PTPS, Patratu, to permit him to join his service; but the request of the petitioner was considered and was rejected vide order dated 15.07.2002. Further, the Appellate Authority, after examining the records of the case and petition filed by the petitioner, vide order dated 21.10.2002, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the revision filed by the petitioner also stood rejected vide order dated 23.06.2004. 2025:JHHC:24781 4 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner knocked the door of this Court. 6. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders are arbitrary, malafide and without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the respondents while passing the impugned orders have not considered the fact that treatment of his wife was undergoing and as such, he was forced to remain absent from duties and the same was neither deliberate nor willful. 7. Learned counsel further argued that principle of natural justice has been violated in the departmental proceeding, inasmuch as, neither the petitioner was given opportunity of being heard; nor the copy of enquiry report was supplied to him before issuance of order of removal. 8. The grounds taken by the respondents in support of their action that they had sent the copy of enquiry report to the home address but the same were returned unserved with postal note that ‘petitioner was out of station’; but the said ground of the respondents is not sustainable since revisional order has been received by the petitioner but the respondents had not taken care to attach the copy of the enquiry report even with the revisional order. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents by vehemently opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been rightly punished by the disciplinary authority for his grave and proven misconduct. Learned counsel further argued that the conduct of the petitioner was highly inconsistent towards faithful discharge of government duties and subversive to a Disciplined Force. 10. The grounds taken by the petitioner that before passing the order of punishment he was not given opportunity to present his case, is not acceptable since as per the facts stated hereinabove ample opportunity was given to the petitioner to appear before the Inquiry Officer and present his case but he failed to do so. Hence, left with no option, the Inquiry Officer 2025:JHHC:24781 5 proceeded to conduct the enquiry ex-parte and found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority after perusing the enquiry report passed the order of removal which was subsequently, affirmed by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority. As such, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. 11. Having gone through the impugned orders and also the conduct of the petitioner, who has deserted from his office for more than 4 times without even informing his superior Authority, cannot be said to be justified. May be for the reason of family affair / medical urgency, but he remained absent; though it was the duty of the petitioner to inform his Superior and/or at least he should have gave an application in this regard. 12. After going through the impugned orders, it is crystal clear that on all occasions; call-up notices were issued to the petitioner to his native place but none of them were received by him; as such, this Court is of the view that the respondents were forced to proceed with ex-parte enquiry and in these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in spite of ex-parte enquiry, this Court does not deem it fit and proper to remit the case for fresh adjudication, inasmuch as, the impugned order itself transpires the past conduct of the petitioner for which he was also punished four times and all the charges were also of habitual absentee without informing the Superiors. 13. As such, I do not find any error in the impugned orders and accordingly, no relief can be granted to this petitioner. 14. As a result, the instant application stands dismissed. Pending I.As., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) kunal/- AFR/NAFR