Ext.P7 by which the 4th respondent dismissed the petitioner from service is under challenge.
2. The petitioner commenced service as Constable (Bug) on 14.5.1991 in 110 BN, CRPF Pallipuram which is under the 1st respondent. The petitioner alleges that while working in CRPF, Nagaland during 2004, he was deputed to Manipur Assembly Election during the month of February, 2007 for polling duty and sustained bullet injury in the battle casualty.
3. The petitioner further alleges that medical expenses for treatment of bullet injury were recovered from his salary and when this was questioned by him, the respondent implicated him in false cases. He further alleges that he was subjected to shock treatment and declared as a case of 'Neutoric Depression and Chronic Alcoholism”.
4. Later the petitioner deserted from the force and however, on request by the Assistant Commandant, he joined the duty; it is alleged. The petitioner alleges that subsequently the medical board recommended that he was fit for light work only. In the meantime, the 4th respondent on the basis of enquiry report passed Ext.P7 dismissing the petitioner. It is with this background, the petitioner has com up before this Court.
5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they have contended that the petitioner had committed acts of misconduct and disobedience in his capacity as a member of the force which according to the respondents, is punishable. They stated that to maintain discipline of the force and to check spread of such bad influence on others, he was dismissed from service from 22.12.2008. No hasty decision has been taken against the petitioner. The petitioner has not preferred any appeal within 30 days of is dismissal order. According to them, the petitioner was careless in his duty because of his habit of consuming alcohol since 2004, which could endanger the lives of other personnel and cause accidents in a very sensitive area like Nagaland, and Jammu and Kashmir. According to the respondents, though ample opportunity was given to the petitioner to improve himself by giving minor punishment, he did not improve.
6. The fact that the petitioner was under treatment is admitted. Thereafter he was detailed for sentry duty on 7.8.2007. But, he was found absent from his duties and on further checking, he was found on his bed in an intoxicated state. During medical examination, he dodged the escort party and deserted the force. Only after that, the departmental enquiry was initiated. Though he pleaded guilty, a full fledged enquiry was conducted, all the charges levelled against him were fully proved and accordingly, he was dismissed. This is the stand taken by the respondents.
7. Arguments have been heard.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dismissal of the petitioner from service was illegal. According to him, as per the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules the petitioner is entitled to be invalidated in service on the basis of medical examination reports and, therefore, he is eligible for disability pension. It is argued that the petitioner is still under psychic treatment. Therefore, the petitioner's wife filed an appeal against Ext.P7 which was rejected without going into the merits of case by Ext.P10. Though the petitioner preferred a review, the same was also rejected by Ext.P12 order.
9. It is true that the medical board found the petitioner unfit for any heavy work. Therefore, he was detailed for sentry duty and was found in an intoxicated mood. Allegedly he dodged the escort party by making an excuse that he wanted to go to urinal and deserted from there and went to his home in Kerala.
10. From the materials placed on record, it would reveal that there was willful laches on the part of the petitioner in performing his duties. However, it is an admitted fact that he was not medically fit to perform his job. The argument that the petitioner was having psychic problem is fortified by the course of conduct throughout his service. There is reason to believe that the misconduct on the part of the petitioner is the outcome of the psychic problems.
11. Though the learned standing counsel for the respondent board would submit that since the petitioner was dismissed from service on account of misconduct, he is not entitled for invalidation on medical grounds, this Court is of the definite view that the case of the petitioner requires a re-look, as there is convincing evidence that he was not medically fit to perform his duties.
Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the 5th respondent through a proper representation projecting the special situation referred to above, within three months from today. In the event of filing such a representation as above, the same shall be considered in the light of the medical evidence in support of the petitioner's case and also by giving due weightage to the long service rendered by him. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of filing of such a representation.
krj Sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE /True Copy/ P.A to Judge