{"id":140756,"date":"2011-09-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011"},"modified":"2016-04-30T20:58:55","modified_gmt":"2016-04-30T15:28:55","slug":"dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Dharambir Singh vs Union Of India & Anr. on 28 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Dharambir Singh vs Union Of India & Anr. on 28 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog<\/div>\n
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                    Judgment Reserved on: 21st September, 2011\n                  Judgment Pronounced on: 28thSeptember, 2011\n\n+                       W.P.(C) 925\/1999\n\n        DHARAMBIR SINGH                       ....Petitioner\n                Through:      Mr.Ravindra S.Jaina, Advocate.\n\n                              versus\n\n        UNION OF INDIA & ANR.             ...Respondents\n                  Through: Mr.Satya Sahrawat and\n                           Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Advocates for\n                           Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate.\n\n        CORAM:\n        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG\n        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR\n\n     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed\n        to see the judgment?\n\n     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?\n\n     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n\nPRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.           The petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in CRPF
\nand earned a promotion to the post of Head Constable. He was
\nhaving some eye ailment and for which he was under medical
\ntreatment of an Ophthalmologist at Postgraduate Institute of
\nMedical Education and Research Chandigarh in respect whereof
\nmedical record shows that petitioner commenced treatment on
\nWP(C) 925\/1999                                        Page 1 of 16<\/span>
\n 7.11.995 which continued till around July 1996.         We shall be
\nreferring to the said record soon hereinafter at the relevant
\nstage. The battalion to which the petitioner was attached was
\ntransferred to Tripura and as would be noted hereinafter, there
\nare medical documents to show that in the month of August
\n1996 the petitioner was under treatment for the eye ailment
\nwhen he was at Tripura.\n<\/p>\n
2.           The petitioner sought 30 days’ leave on account of
\nthe death of his mother. It was sanctioned from 26.8.1996 to
\n24.9.1996.\n<\/p>\n
3.               On 24.9.1996 the petitioner sent a telegram which
\nwas received by the Commandant of the unit on 10.10.1996
\nunder which petitioner sought leave to be extended on the
\nground that he was under medical treatment at CRPF Hospital
\nat Jarodha Kalan.\n<\/p>\n
4.           The Commandant informed the petitioner vide letter
\ndated 15.10.1996 that proper documents pertaining to medical
\ninfirmity should be furnished, failing which the petitioner was
\ndirected to immediately join duties. The petitioner did not join
\nback and hence on 16.11.1996 the Commandant wrote another
\nletter to the petitioner to join back.\n<\/p>\n
5.           It appears that since the petitioner had informed the
\nCommandant that he was admitted at the Base Hospital,
\nJarodha    Kalana,     CRPF   on   8.11.1996,   in   response    to     a
\ncommunication, the Chief Medical Officer of the said hospital
\nhad sent a certificate dated 26.11.1996 certifying that the
\nWP(C) 925\/1999                                           Page 2 of 16<\/span>
\n petitioner was fit to join duties. Being in receipt thereof, vide
\nletter dated 14.1.1997 the Commandant once against required
\npetitioner to report back. The petitioner did not report back.
\nOn 14.3.1997 proceedings were initiated before a Magistrate to
\nobtain an arrest warrant as the petitioner was treated as a
\ndeserter. The petitioner could not be located and vide order
\ndated 15.7.1997 he was declared a deserter.\n<\/p>\n
6.           It was only on 24.11.1997 that the petitioner
\nreported for duty after unauthorized absence of 1 year and 2
\nmonths.      A charge memo was issued to the petitioner on
\n4.12.1997 for the misdemeanour of overstaying leave by 426
\ndays.\n<\/p>\n
7.           Inquiry Officer was appointed and needless to state
\nthe witnesses of the prosecution proved that the petitioner did
\nnot report back after 30 days’ leave sanctioned to him was
\nover. Various communications sent by the Commandant to the
\npetitioner were proved. It was proved that the petitioner never
\nsent the requisite documents along with a proper application
\nfor medical leave to be sanctioned to him.        The petitioner
\ntendered in evidence a host of documents which showed
\npetitioner availing medical treatment.\n<\/p>\n
8.           Since the petitioner never denied overstaying leave
\nfor 426 days and justified the same with reference to his
\nmedical condition, we eschew reference to such pleadings in
\nthe writ petition where pot shots are being taken at the
\nprosecution evidence, for the reason the facts of the instant
\nWP(C) 925\/1999                                       Page 3 of 16<\/span>
\n case would reveal that it was the defense which has to succeed
\nand there was nothing for the prosecution to prove since
\nabsence for 426 days was not in dispute.\n<\/p>\n
9.           The   petitioner    tendered   various   documents
\npertaining to the stated medical treatment availed by him and
\nwe note the same at seriatim as under:-\n<\/p>\n
A.           Out Patient Department Card bearing stamp dated
\n07.11.1995 issued by the Postgraduate Institute of Medical
\nEducation and Research, Chandigarh, having endorsements
\npertaining to petitioner visiting the institute and meeting the
\ndoctor on 15.05.1996, 24.05.1996, 21.06.1996 and 05.07.1996.
\nB.           Cash Memos dated 13.11.1995, 27.11.1995 and
\n8.1.1996 issued by Rana Medical Hall, Chandigarh regarding
\npurchase of medicine for eye ailment.\n<\/p>\n
C.           Instructions dated 05.12.1995, 9.12.1995, 13.5.1996
\nand 15.6.1996 on a lined copy sheet relating to OPD Card
\nNo.804\/1995.\n<\/p>\n
D.           Treatment and Investigations sheet bearing stamp
\ndated 08.01.1996 having prescriptions dated 22.11.1995,
\n04.12.1995 and instruction for review on 06.05.1996.
\nE.           General   Receipt   dated   15.04.1996   issued         by
\nPostgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research,
\nChandigarh on account of treatment for refraction.
\nF.           General   Receipt   dated   17.05.1996   issued         by
\nPostgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research,
\nChandigarh on account of: C.L.\n<\/p>\n
WP(C) 925\/1999                                        Page 4 of 16<\/span><\/p>\n
 G.           OPD slip dated 08.08.1996 prescribing eye drops
\nand a review instructions dated 12.08.1996.
\nH.           Cash Memo dated 8.8.1996 issued by Urbashi
\nMedical Hall, Tripura for purchase of eye drops.
\nI.           Diagnosis dated 19.08.1996 on a lined copy sheet
\nrelating to OPD No.226, having instructions dated 21.08.1996
\nto report to eye specialist on 26.08.1996.
\nJ.           Cash Memo dated 19.8.1996 issued by Medi-Point,
\nTripura for purchase of eye drops.\n<\/p>\n
K.           OPD card dated 19.9.1996 issued by AIIMS New
\nDelhi,    having     diagnosis   dated     30.09.1996,   10.10.1996,
\n14.10.1996, 17.10.1996, 24.10.1996, 04.11.1996, 05.12.1996
\nand 12.12.1996.\n<\/p>\n
L.           Discharge Certificate dated 08.11.1996 issued by
\nCRPF Base Hospital, New Delhi, evidencing petitioner admitted
\nfor treatment for viral fever and prerenal azotemia on
\n31.10.1996 and discharged on 8.11.1996 with advice to be on
\nbed rest for 15 days.\n<\/p>\n
M.           Medical Certificate of Fitness and Return Duty,
\ndated 26.11.1996, issued by Chief Medical officer CRPF New
\nDelhi.\n<\/p>\n
N.           OPD Card issued by AIIMS New Delhi, recording
\nvisits   made      for   check   up   on   12.12.1996,   30.12.1996,
\n20.01.1997, 30.01.1997, 03.02.1997 and 17.02.1997.
\nO.           Cash Memos dated 31.12.1996, 18.1.1997 and
\n17.2.1997 issued by Medicare Chemists, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
WP(C) 925\/1999                                           Page 5 of 16<\/span><\/p>\n
 P.           Cash Memos dated 07.01.1997 and 08.01.1997
\nissued by Lal Sons Chemists.\n<\/p>\n
Q.           OPD Card issued by AIIMS New Delhi recording visits
\nmade for check up on 27.02.1997, 20.03.1997, 27.03.1997,
\n24.04.1997 and 28.08.1997.\n<\/p>\n
R.           OPD Card issued by AIIMS New Delhi recording visits
\nmade for check up on 19.05.1997, 26.05.1997, 02.06.1997,
\n28.07.1997 and 11.08.1997.\n<\/p>\n
S.           Report dated 02.06.1997 by Eye Surgeon of Dr.
\nRajendra Prasad Centre for Opthalmic Sciences.
\nT.           Diagnosis on OPD card slip dated 28.08.1997,
\n08.09.1997, 18.09.1997, 06.10.1997, 27.10.1997, 12.11.1997
\nand 01.12.1997.\n<\/p>\n
U.           Certificate dated 19.09.1997 issued by Dr.Rasik
\nVajpayee, AIIMS, New Delhi certifying that Mr. Dharambir Singh
\nis undergoing treatment for eyes.\n<\/p>\n
V.           Undated Cash Memo issued by Arora Medical Store.
\nW.           Prescription dated 13.12.1997 on OPD slip having
\ninstructions dated 20.12.1997 to attend AIIMS.
\nX.           Cash Memo dated 13.12.1997 issued by Usha
\nMedical Hall.\n<\/p>\n
Y.           Diagnosis dated 02.01.1998 on prescription slip
\ndated 13.12.1997 issued by Medical Superintendent, Tripura.\n<\/p>\n
10.          From a perusal of the medical documents filed it is
\napparent that the petitioner was having an eye ailment which
\nrequired prolonged treatment, but not as a patient admitted at
\nWP(C) 925\/1999                                       Page 6 of 16<\/span>
\n the hospital. The document earliest in point of time is the OPD
\nCard dated 7.11.1995 issued by Postgraduate Institute of
\nMedical Education and Research Chandigarh and related
\ndocuments pertaining to PGI or Chemists at Chandigarh
\nshowing that till 17.5.1996 the petitioner remained under
\ntreatment at Chandigarh and had been visiting the doctor
\nconcerned at periodic intervals.      The record then shows that
\nthe petitioner was in Tripura in the month of August 1996
\nevidenced from the cash memos pertaining to chemists, listed
\nat serial No.H and J of para 9 above showing petitioner having
\npurchased eye drops at Tripura. Record further shows that on
\n19.9.1996 petitioner had visited AIIMS to consult a doctor when
\nOPD Card dated 19.9.1996 was issued. Record shows that the
\npetitioner had been visiting the Ophthalmologist at AIIMS on
\nvarious dates till 20.12.1997. Record certainly evidences that
\nthe petitioner had also suffered from viral fever and prerenal
\nazotemia for which he remained admitted at CRPF Base
\nHospital    from   31.10.1996    to   8.11.1996   and    on    being
\ndischarged on 8.11.1996 was advised rest and it was only on
\n26.11.1996 that the petitioner was certified fit to resume
\nduties.    Record shows that the petitioner was admitted for
\nshort durations at PGI Chandigarh and AIIMS at Delhi for the
\neye treatment, but the exact duration during which petitioner
\nremained admitted cannot be ascertained; none has been
\npleaded with clarity in the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
WP(C) 925\/1999                                          Page 7 of 16<\/span><\/p>\n
 11.          The period of unauthorized absence commenced
\nfrom 25.9.1996 inasmuch as the petitioner was sanctioned
\nleave from 26.8.1996 to 24.9.1996 and thus the medical record
\nproduced by the petitioner can safely be put in two parts. Pre
\n26.8.1996 period and post 26.8.1996 period.\n<\/p>\n
12.          The medical record noted at serial No.A to J in para
\n9 above would reveal that the petitioner had undertaken
\ntreatment for some eye ailment at Postgraduate Institute of
\nMedical Education and Research at Chandigarh and the nature
\nof treatment i.e. as an OPD patient shows that the ailment,
\nthough chronic was not of a kind that the petitioner was unable
\nto perform duties. We call the ailment chronic inasmuch as the
\ntreatment which commenced on 7.11.1995 continued till
\nAugust 1996.     During this period the battalion to which the
\npetitioner was attached had been sent to Tripura and thus we
\nhave cash memos detailed at serial No.H and J of para 9 above
\nwhich shows that on 8.8.1996 and 19.8.1996 the petitioner
\npurchased eye drops from a chemist at Tripura.\n<\/p>\n
13.          Medical documents listed at serial No.K to X of para
\n9 above would show that on 19.9.1996 the petitioner went to
\nAIIMS for treatment of some eye ailment and he made visits to
\nAIIMS on various dates indicated in the OPD card listed at serial
\nNo.K of para 9 above till 12.12.1996 and in between, contacted
\nviral fever and prerenal azotemia for which he remained
\nhospitalized at CRPF Base Hospital from 31.10.1996 to
\n8.11.1996 and being discharged on 8.11.1996 was advised bed
\nWP(C) 925\/1999                                        Page 8 of 16<\/span>
\n rest for 15 days. And this explains the certificate of medical
\nfitness dated 26.11.1996 to which we have referred to
\nhereinabove being issued by the Chief Medical Officer CRPF
\nthat petitioner was fit. The medical documents listed at serial
\nNo.K to Y of para 9 above would show that as an OPD patient
\nthe petitioner had been visiting an Ophthalmologist at AIIMS.\n<\/p>\n
14.          Now, there is evidence of petitioner having a chronic
\neye ailment and probably he underwent eye surgery at
\nChandigarh for a refraction error for the reason the general
\nreceipts dated 15.4.1996 and 17.5.1996 details whereof have
\nbeen noted at serial No.E and F of para 9 above show some
\nkind of surgical intervention performed in the eye of the
\npetitioner. But, said period is prior to when the petitioner was
\ngranted leave.         There is no evidence of petitioner being
\nhospitalized     for   any        eye   ailment   during    the    period        of
\nunauthorized absence.\n<\/p>\n
15.          It was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner
\nthat   though     there      is    no   evidence    of     petitioner    being
\nhospitalized, there is enough evidence that petitioner was
\nsuffering from a chronic eye ailment and thus counsel urged
\nthat the petitioner had a good reason not to join because
\nmedical facilities at Tripura were not available or were not up
\nto the mark.\n<\/p>\n
16.          That is not the way in which the issue has to be
\nlooked at legally.\n<\/p>\n
WP(C) 925\/1999                                                    Page 9 of 16<\/span><\/p>\n
 17.          It is not in dispute that the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972
\ngovern the service of the petitioner and we highlight that Rule
\n7, 14 and 19 of the said Rules are relevant and thus we note
\nthe same. They read as under:-\n<\/p>\n
      7. Right to leave
\n      (1) Leave cannot be claimed as of right.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (2) When the exigencies of public service so require,
\n      leave of any kind may be refused or revoked by the
\n      authority competent to grant it, but it shall not be open to
\n      that authority to alter the kind of leave due and applied
\n      for except at the written request of the Government
\n      servant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                   X    X     X\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      14. Application for leave<\/p>\n
      Any application for leave or for extension of leave shall be
\n      made in Form 1 to the authority competent to grant
\n      leave.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                   X    X     X<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      19. Grant of leave on medical certificate to Gazetted and
\n      non- Gazetted Government servants<\/p>\n
      (1)    An application for leave on medical certificate made
\n      by-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (i)  a Gazetted    Government servant,        shall be
\n      accompanied by a medical certificate in Form 3 given by
\n      a Central Government Health Service (CGHS) Doctor if
\n      such a Government servant is a CGHS beneficiary or by a
\n      Government Hospital or by an Authorized Medical
\nWP(C) 925\/1999                                        Page 10 of 16<\/span>
\n       Attendant if he is not a CGHS beneficiary; and by an
\n      Authorized Doctor of the private hospital recognized
\n      under CGHS\/Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules,
\n      1944, in case of hospitalization or indoor specialized
\n      treatment duly approved by Competent Authority in
\n      respect of any particular kind of disease like heart
\n      disease, cancer, etc., for the treatment of which the
\n      concerned hospital has been recognized by the Ministry of
\n      Health and Family Welfare:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Provided that the Gazetted Government servant who is a
\n      Central Government Health Service beneficiary, if at the
\n      time of illness, is away from CGHS area or proceeds on
\n      duty outside the Headquarters will produce Medical
\n      Certificate (MC) or Fitness Certificate (FC) in Form 3 and
\n      Form 5, as the case may be, given by an Authorized
\n      Medical Attendant;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (ii) a non-Gazetted Government servant, shall be
\n      accompanied by a medical certificate Form 4 given by a
\n      CGHS Doctor if such a Government servant is a CGHS
\n      beneficiary or by Government Hospital or by an
\n      Authorized Medical Attendant if he is not a CGHS
\n      beneficiary; and by an Authorized Doctor of the private
\n      hospital, recognized under CGHS\/Central Services
\n      (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944, in              case of
\n      hospitalization or indoor specialized treatment duly
\n      approved by the Competent Authority in respect of
\n      particular kind of disease like heart disease, cancer, etc.,
\n      for the treatment of which the concerned hospital has
\n      been recognized by the Ministry of Health and Family
\n      Welfare:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Provided that the non-Gazetted Government servant who
\n      is a CGHS beneficiary, if at the time of illness is away
\n      from CGHS area or proceeds on duty outside the
\n      Headquarters will produce M.C. or F.C. in Form 4 or 5, as
\n      the case may be, given by an Authorized Medical
\nWP(C) 925\/1999                                        Page 11 of 16<\/span>
\n       Attendant (AMA) or by Registered Medical Practitioner
\n      (RMP) if there is no AMA available within a radius of 8
\n      kilometers (kms) from his residence or place of temporary
\n      stay outside his Headquarters and also in the
\n      circumstances when he finds it difficult to obtain MC or FC
\n      from a CGHS Doctor or an Authorized Medical Attendant;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      defining as clearly as possible the nature and probable
\n      duration of illness.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (2) A Medical Officer shall not recommend the grant of
\n      leave in any case in which there appears to be no
\n      reasonable prospect that the Government servant
\n      concerned will ever be fit to resume his duties and in such
\n      case, the opinion that the Government servant is
\n      permanently unfit for Government service shall be
\n      recorded in the medical certificate.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (3) The authority competent to grant leave may, at its
\n      discretion, secure a second medical opinion by requesting
\n      a Government Medical Officer not below the rank of a
\n      Civil Surgeon or Staff Surgeon, to have the applicant
\n      medically examined on the earliest possible date.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (4) It shall be the duty of the Government Medical Officer
\n      referred to in sub-rule (3) to express an opinion both as
\n      regards the facts of the illness and as regards the
\n      necessity for the amount of leave recommended and for
\n      that purpose may either require the applicant to appear
\n      before himself or before a Medical Officer nominated by
\n      himself.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (5) The grant of medical certificate under this rule does
\n      not in itself confer upon the Government servant
\n      concerned any right to leave; the medical certificate shall
\n      be forwarded to the authority competent to grant leave
\n      and orders of that authority awaited.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
WP(C) 925\/1999                                       Page 12 of 16<\/span><\/p>\n
       (6) The authority competent to grant leave may, in its
\n      discretion, waive the production of a medical certificate in
\n      case of an application for leave for a period not exceeding
\n      three days at a time. Such leave shall not, however, be
\n      treated as leave on medical certificate and shall be
\n      debited against leave other than leave on medical
\n      grounds.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
18.          A co-joint reading of the Rules would evidence that
\nleave cannot be claimed as of right and is subject to exigencies
\nof public service. Secondly, application for leave or extension
\nthereof has to be made as per Form 1 prescribed and has to be
\nsubmitted to the authority competent to sanction leave.
\nFurther, an application seeking medical leave has to be
\naccompanied by a medical certificate issued by any one of the
\nauthorities specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) of Sub-Rule 1 of
\nRule 19 of the Leave Rules.\n<\/p>\n
19.          The petitioner never obtained, much less furnished
\na certificate from the concerned doctor justifying grant of
\nmedical leave save and except pertaining to petitioner being
\ntreated for viral fever and prerenal azotemia at the CRPF Base
\nHospital from 31.10.1996 till 8.11.1996 and it is only the
\ndischarge certificate dated 8.11.1996, detailed at serial No.L of
\npara 9 above which is in proper format.       The remainder i.e.
\nwhether they are certificates or endorsements on OPD cards,
\nonly evidence that the petitioner was undertaking some
\ntreatment for an eye ailment and not that the petitioner was
\nunfit for duty.\n<\/p>\n
WP(C) 925\/1999                                         Page 13 of 16<\/span><\/p>\n
 20.          It is apparent that the petitioner did not comply with
\nthe letter of the law.\n<\/p>\n
21.          Learned counsel for the petitioner had urged that if
\nthe spirit of the law is satisfied, it does not matter whether the
\nletter of the law is satisfied.\n<\/p>\n
22.          Leaving the debate open where the antagonist view
\nwould be that as long as there is material to show medical
\ninfirmity, it hardly matters whether the form of the material
\nconforms to the letter of the law, and the protagonist would
\nargue that in relation to public service where the tax payer’s
\nmoney feeds the mouth of the civil servant and his family a
\npunctual observance of the letter of the law should be insisted
\nfor the reason an ailment could be of a kind which does not
\nrender a person unfit for duty and such an ailing person must
\nearn his bread and butter.        You cannot just sit back in your
\nhouse on an ailment which may be chronic but not of a kind
\nwhich renders you unfit for duty.       It may be argued by the
\nprotagonist that a civil servant with a chronic but not a
\nthreatening ailment can be assigned light duties and thus he
\nmust report for work.\n<\/p>\n
23.          We prefer to decide on the facts of the instant case.
\nThe petitioner is not armed with any medical certificate that he
\nwas unfit for duties except for a short period of 3 weeks, when
\nhe was hospitalized at CRPF Base Hospital.         He was taking
\ntreatment as an OPD Patient.        This shows that the petitioner
\nwas in his house. It may be true that first class eye treatment
\nWP(C) 925\/1999                                         Page 14 of 16<\/span>
\n is not available at Tripura where the battalion of the petitioner
\nwas stationed, but we see no reason why the petitioner could
\nnot have joined duties and requested that he should be
\nattached to a battalion of CRPF which was stationed for duties
\nat Delhi or Chandigarh. He could have produced the medical
\npapers pertaining to his treatment before the Commandant
\nwho    could     have   obtained    an   opinion   whether   medical
\ntreatment required by the petitioner required him to be
\nstationed at either Delhi or Chandigarh.           If the petitioner
\nrequired periodic visits to AIIMS, the alternative of sanctioning
\nmedical leave for short durations to enable petitioner to
\npresent himself before the Ophthalmologist would also have
\nbeen considered as an alternative.\n<\/p>\n
24.          The petitioner could not become a judge in his own
\ncause. He could not just stay back at Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
25.          We must highlight that all cases of unauthorized
\nabsence or desertion being brought before us pertained to
\nwhen battalions of CRPF or BSF are transferred to hard areas
\nand it surprises us that when stationed at peace places, no
\nofficer of CRPF or BSF complains of sickness. Not a single case
\nof desertion, or unauthorized absence, out of over 250 decided
\nby us till today pertains to a CRPF or BSF jawan of a battalion
\nposted in a peace station.         Whenever we have called upon
\ncounsel for CRPF or BSF to advance arguments on the quantum
\nof punishment, they have always highlighted that there is a
\ntendency of the force personnel to feign sickness or exaggerate
\nWP(C) 925\/1999                                           Page 15 of 16<\/span>
\n minor illnesses to avoid working in hard areas and if this
\ndeviancy is overlooked, it would breed insubordination in the
\nforce because jawans would not obey lawful commands of the
\nsuperiors to report back.        This would encourage deviant
\nbehaviour by others. Secondly, it has been pointed out to us
\nthat force personnel are sent on leave by rotation and where
\none jawan overstays leave, he does so at the cost to some
\nother(s).\n<\/p>\n
26.          We note that the original penalty of removal from
\nservice inflicted by the disciplinary authority has been whittled
\ndown by the appellate authority to one of compulsory
\nretirement with benefits of pension and gratuity and other
\nadmissible benefits.     In other words for the service rendered
\nthe petitioner has been granted due recognition to receive
\npensionary benefits.\n<\/p>\n
27.          We find no merit in the writ petition which is
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
28.          No costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                   (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
\n                                          JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                      (SUNIL GAUR)
\n                                           JUDGE
\nSeptember 28, 2011
\nmm<\/p>\n
WP(C) 925\/1999                                       Page 16 of 16<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Dharambir Singh vs Union Of India & Anr. on 28 September, 2011 Author: Pradeep Nandrajog * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 21st September, 2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 28thSeptember, 2011 + W.P.(C) 925\/1999 DHARAMBIR SINGH ….Petitioner Through: Mr.Ravindra S.Jaina, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-140756","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDharambir Singh vs Union Of India & Anr. on 28 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dharambir Singh vs Union Of India & Anr. on 28 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-30T15:28:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dharambir Singh vs Union Of India & Anr. on 28 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-30T15:28:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3408,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Dharambir Singh vs Union Of India & Anr. on 28 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-30T15:28:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dharambir Singh vs Union Of India & Anr. on 28 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dharambir Singh vs Union Of India & Anr. on 28 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dharambir Singh vs Union Of India & Anr. on 28 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-30T15:28:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dharambir Singh vs Union Of India & Anr. on 28 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-30T15:28:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011"},"wordCount":3408,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011","name":"Dharambir Singh vs Union Of India & Anr. on 28 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-30T15:28:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharambir-singh-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-28-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dharambir Singh vs Union Of India & Anr. on 28 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140756","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=140756"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140756\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=140756"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=140756"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=140756"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}