Facts of the Case
Mohammad Shahbaz Mir joined the CRPF in 1997 and was posted in the 181 Battalion. He proceeded on leave from August 3, 2011, to August 30, 2011, but did not return to duty post his leave period. Mir claimed his extended absence was due to psychological disturbances and ongoing marital discord. Despite several attempts by his superiors to contact him, Mir remained absent without authorization, leading to his dismissal on December 3, 2012.
Legal Arguments and Contentions
Mir argued that his dismissal violated the principles of natural justice and the procedural requirements outlined under Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules. He contended that all communications, including the dismissal order, were in Hindi—a language he claimed not to understand. The respondents, represented by Mr. Nazir Ahmad Bhat, CGSC, countered that Mir had overstayed his leave without permission and had ignored multiple requests to report for duty. They outlined the steps taken to apprehend Mir and detailed the departmental inquiry process that resulted in his dismissal.
Court's Analysis and Observations
Justice Sanjay Dhar meticulously reviewed the case and noted that Mir had overstayed his sanctioned leave starting from September 1, 2011. Despite being arrested and handed over to his battalion, he deserted the force again on September 9, 2012. The court observed that Mir had cited domestic problems, including a divorce and a custody dispute, as reasons for his absence. However, the court found no emergent issues at the time of his desertion that justified his prolonged absence.
Adherence to Natural Justice Principles
The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice do not operate in a vacuum. Justice Dhar stated, "When the facts are admitted, the holding of fresh enquiry and allowing opportunity of hearing to a delinquent employee would be an empty formality." The court found that the CRPF had adhered to the prescribed procedure under Rule 27 (c) of the CRPF Rules, as multiple communications were sent to Mir's residential address, giving him ample opportunity to participate in the inquiry proceedings.
Language Barrier Claim
Mir's claim of not understanding Hindi was also dismissed by the court. It noted that he had previously communicated in Hindi for leave applications and appointment orders. This indicated that Mir was sufficiently proficient in Hindi to understand the communications related to his dismissal.
Conclusion
In alignment with these observations, the court dismissed the petition and upheld Mir's dismissal from service. The case underscores the importance of procedural adherence and the reasonable expectations placed on both employers and employees. Employers are required to follow due process but are not obligated to undertake extraordinary measures to locate absconding employees. The ruling sets a precedent for handling similar cases where employees fail to return to duty without valid reasons.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.