Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Apr 10: High Court today dismissed the plea of CRPF constable challenging his compulsory retirement citing the employer is not duty bound to launch manhunt of his absconding employee.
Justice Sanjay Dhar has rejected the plea of one Harish Chander seeking reinstatement of his services in the CRPF who was working as head constable in CRPF before his compulsory retirement.
The petitioner-Chander, through the medium of the instant petition, challenged an order dated 07.03.2019 whereby the punishment of compulsory retirement from service has been imposed upon him.
The court upheld his compulsory retirement, who remained absent from duty for an extended period of 326 days without permission by observing that an employer is not obligated to undertake an exhaustive search to trace an absconding employee.
“An employer is not expected to launch a manhunt for an absconding employee in the whole world. It is enough if an employer sends the communications to an absconding employee at his residential address. This is what has been done by the respondents as well as the Inquiry Officer in the present case,” the Court recorded.
The court noted that the inquiry officer and the employer had duly followed the process under the CRPF Rules and that communications were sent to the petitioner-Chander on his recorded address. “The petitioner cannot take shelter behind the excuse that he had changed his address due to illness,” court said.
The court further added that it was his (employee’s) responsibility to inform the employer about such a change. “In the absence of any such communication, the employer cannot be faulted for sending notices to the last known address,” read the judgment.
Citing Rule 29(d) of the CRPF Rules, Justice Dhar noted that it expressly vests the revisional authority with suo moto jurisdiction to confirm, modify, or enhance punishments imposed upon members of the force.
Justice Dhar concluded that the petitioner was absent without leave for nearly a year without any valid justification or communication with the authorities, as such found no reason to interfere with the disciplinary action taken against him. “The punishment of compulsory retirement, the Court held, was commensurate with the nature and gravity of the misconduct”.
The court said that the petitioner belongs to a disciplined force like CRPF, any leniency in imposing punishment upon him for the nature of the charge which has been proved against him, would be detrimental to the discipline of the Force.
The post Employer not obliged to search for absconding employee: HC appeared first on Daily Excelsior.