Title: Sadanand Mishra v. Union of India and others
Decided on: 02 AUGUST 2023.
+ WRIT PETITION NO. 4557 OF 2002
CORAM: NITIN JAMDAR & SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
Facts of the Case:
The Petitioners are ex-Constables working in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), who were removed from service by order dated 01 January, 1987 as a measure of punishment after initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Both Petitioners claim that they were unaware of penalty orders of removal passed on 01 January 1987 and contend that the same were received by them on 26 September 2001. They accordingly filed appeals against the penalty orders, which were rejected. Thus, in this Appeal they have challenged the removal orders dated 01 January 1987 as well as orders passed by the Appellate Authority on 11 March 2002.
Petitioners got embroiled in CBI Case regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Both Petitioners were placed under suspension owing to registration of CBI Case against them vide orders dated 26 November 1984.
Issues
Whether the removal orders made without the acceptance of same by the petitioners valid even after the appeal was made 16years later?
Contentions
The petitioners submit that the entire inquiry proceedings as well as penalty orders are vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice. The inquiry proceedings were conducted behind the back of Petitioners without serving them Memoranda of chargesheet and without affording them any opportunity of hearing. No inquiry was held under the garb of refusal of charge-sheets by Petitioners. In absence of any inquiry being held, Petitioners could not be penalised. That even the orders of removal from service were not served upon Petitioners and therefore the same cannot take any effect. The provisions of Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 or the Rules made thereunder do not mandate daily attendance by a suspended member of the Force. He would therefore submit that failure to give daily attendance would not constitute as misconduct on the part of the Petitioners. The Petitioners have ultimately been acquitted in the Criminal Case and faced minor charge of failure to give daily attendance during period of suspension, for which penalty of removal from service is harsh.
The Respondents contend that the notices were actually served. The brother of the petitioner informed them about the notice and therefore, the notices were actually served.
Decision
The Court observed that the Respondents have taken all the necessary measures to serve the notice, by trying for the same on multiple occasions. The Petitioners did not make any attempt to inquire about their subsistence allowance and particularly regarding the non-receipt of the same, when any prudent person would have done so. In the present case, after 18 April 1985 Petitioners admittedly did not make any effort to inquire about status of their services. The first communication addressed by Petitioners for supply of copies of removal orders was on 28 September 2001. Thus, for a period of 16 long years, Petitioners did not seek to know about status of their services. The action is barred by time.
It was petitioners’ duty to ensure that their correct addresses were maintained in the Respondents’ office for service of any communication. Respondents cannot be faulted in addressing various communications such as chargesheets, show cause notices and penalty orders at addresses given by Petitioners. We find that the Respondents have made genuine attempts to serve various communications to petitioners from time to time. We therefore cannot hold Respondents responsible for non-service of penalty orders removing Petitioners from service.
Petitioners were made aware of the fact that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them, because of the attempt by ASI in the Court of the CBI Judge.
The petition was dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law
