The Delhi High Court recently addressed a significant issue concerning the resignation of government employees during the pendency of disciplinary inquiries. The court's decision underscores the importance of maintaining discipline within paramilitary forces and clarifies the legal stance on resignations tendered amidst ongoing investigations.
Case Background
The petitioner, an Assistant Commandant (AC) in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), was granted leave from February 2, 2015, to March 13, 2015. Prior to the completion of his leave, he reported a back ailment and sought an extension, supported by medical certificates. Despite multiple extensions and communications, the petitioner did not report to the nearest CRPF hospital as directed, citing the distance of 300 kilometers from his residence. Consequently, the CRPF initiated a preliminary inquiry into his unauthorized absence and issued a show-cause notice.
In response, the petitioner expressed his willingness to rejoin duties upon recovery. However, instead of complying with the directives, he tendered his resignation on December 15, 2015, citing personal reasons. The CRPF, referencing the pending inquiry, did not accept his resignation and proceeded with disciplinary actions, ultimately leading to his removal from service on October 25, 2016.
Legal Contentions
The petitioner challenged the CRPF's decision, arguing that his resignation should have been accepted and that the disciplinary proceedings were unjustified. He contended that his prolonged absence was due to genuine medical reasons and that the non-acceptance of his resignation was arbitrary.
The CRPF countered by highlighting the petitioner's non-compliance with direct orders to report to a CRPF medical facility and his failure to resume duties. They emphasized that accepting a resignation during an ongoing inquiry would set a detrimental precedent, potentially allowing personnel to evade disciplinary actions by resigning.
Court's Analysis and Judgment
The Delhi High Court examined the circumstances and the applicable legal framework. It referred to the Office Memorandum No. 28034/4/94-Estt.(A), which stipulates that resignations during pending inquiries or investigations are generally not accepted unless it serves the public interest. The court noted that the petitioner's actions demonstrated a disregard for the established protocols and directives, which are crucial for maintaining discipline in paramilitary forces.
The court emphasized that the role of an Assistant Commandant carries significant responsibility, and adherence to rules and orders is paramount. The petitioner's failure to report to the designated medical facility and his subsequent unauthorized absence reflected poorly on his commitment to duty and discipline.
Furthermore, the court reiterated the principle that judicial review of disciplinary matters is limited. It is not the role of the court to re-evaluate the evidence or the severity of the punishment unless there is a clear indication of procedural irregularity or disproportionate sentencing. In this case, the court found no such irregularities.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the CRPF's decision to reject the resignation and proceed with disciplinary action. The judgment reinforces the principle that resignations tendered during the pendency of disciplinary inquiries are generally not accepted, especially in disciplined forces like the CRPF. It underscores the necessity for strict adherence to protocols and the importance of maintaining discipline within such organizations.
This ruling serves as a precedent, highlighting that personnel cannot circumvent disciplinary proceedings through resignation. It affirms the organization's authority to enforce discipline and ensures that actions undermining the integrity and operational efficiency of the force are appropriately addressed.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.