The present writ petition has been filed challenging the enquiry report dated 22nd September 2021 for fair enquiry against the Petitioner as also to provide medical treatment to the petitioner till he becomes fit to join duty, and the same issue was held in the judgement passed by a Division bench judge HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL, in the matter SATYA PRAKASH SINGH V. CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (CRPF) & ORS. dealt with an issue mentioned above.
In this case, the petitioner further seeks directions to the Respondents to give salaries for December 2020, January 2021, February 2021, and June 2021 along with arrears of HRA.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that the Petitioner, who was a constable CT/GD in the CRPF was undergoing treatment for Spondylolisthesis and was given rest till 24th December 2020. He, however, stated that the Petitioner received a letter dated 12th December 2020, whereby he was ordered to join 11th BN Jharkhand immediately which the Petitioner did not follow since the treatment was continuing, they also mentioned that the petitioner was not allowed to go to Delhi to get further treatment and the Respondents also did not release the Petitioner’s salary.
It was further noticed that respondent no.4 office issued the impugned letter dated 6th October 2021 in which an order of recovery of Rs.7,15,887/-, was issued against the Petitioner and the salary along with HRA has been adjusted in the said recovery on the ground that the petitioner was under medical treatment and had proceeded on rest and is therefore not liable for payment of salary.
It was further alleged that the Petitioner misled the office while getting himself treated at BMCC and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, by tampering with the dates and documents.
Accordingly, this Court also finds that the Petitioner has indulged in many disciplinary acts during his deployment in Battalion despite being given adequate opportunities to improve. From the aforesaid facts, it was apparent that the Petitioner was a habitual offender and the present writ petition is not of such a nature that warrants this Court’s interference at the interim stage.
The court perused the facts and argument’s presented, it thought that- “This Court is also of the view that, at this stage, only an enquiry report has been furnished to the petitioner and the disciplinary authority is yet to take a view about enquiry report. Even about the deduction of salaries, the petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to raise its grievances. It is settled law that the Court cannot interfere in the disciplinary/inquiry proceedings at the interim stage. [See: State of Uttar W.P.(C)12632/2021 Page 5 of 5 Pradesh Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma & Anr, (1987) 2 SCC 179, Para 09]. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is premature. Accordingly, the present writ petition along with pending applications is dismissed”.
Judgment Reviewed by: Mandira BS
