MUNNA PRASAD MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:-

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the the present petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Sub Inspector under the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). In the year 1994 the petitioner took 9 days leave and in between he informed to the Department that due to physical ailment he was unable to resume the services, but the same was not accepted and telegram was also sent to the petitioner at his village address, which was not received by the petitioner, as he was in some other place, thereafter a show cause notice was issued on 6/6/1994, which was replied by the petitioner, thereafter departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dtd. 25/2/1996 vide Annexure-P/35, against which the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as W.P. No.5098/1998 and vide order dtd. 13/09/2013, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to file revision petition before the appropriate authority, thereafter the petitioner moved the revision petition before the competent authority (the respondent No. 4), which has been dismissed, hence the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order Annexure P/1 is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. The action of the respondents is curt, callous, illegal, arbitrary and nonest in the eyes of law. The Department has not appreciated the fact that the ailment of the petitioner was duly proved by him and Department has followed the provision of the Act,1968 and Rules, 1969, which says that the employee may communicate the Department regarding any exigency/urgency and the suitable documents may be filed after joining of the services, unfortunately in case of the petitioner, no such procedure is followed and petitioner was never sought to file the certificates and contrary to that he was outrightly directed by the authority to join the services forthwith. The order Annexure P/1 is passed behind the back of the petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is the basic rule of the law and in count alone the order Annexure P/1 is unsustainable in the eyes of law and termination of the petitioner is violative to the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1968 and Rules, 1969. He lastly submits that as per the respondents, the petitioner is guilty for overstaying his leave period and the respondent authorities have awarded extreme punishment of dismissal, as such punishment of dismissal is uncalled for. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ved Prakash Gupta vs M/s Delton Cable India (P) Ltd, reported in (1984) 2 SCC 569 and Union of India and others vs Giriraj Sharma, reported in (1994) Supp 3 SCC 755.