CONSTABLE SUNIL KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, an Ex-constable in Delhi Police, challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 14th May, 1999 in R.A. No. 114 of 1999 in O.A. No. 1437 of 1993 whereby the Tribunal chose not to interfere with its earlier order dated 11th March, 1999 by which it had dismissed the O.A. by a detailed order even though without assistance of counsel for the Petitioner who chose not to be present. The review application was primarily based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Bakshish Singh, but the Tribunal rejected-the review on the ground that this is clearly an after-thought.

(2.) Being aggrieved of the order of the Tribunal dated 14th May, 1999, the Petitioner has moved this Court by way of the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is the case of the Petitioner that during the pendency of the Original Application No. 1437 of 1998 before the Tribunal, the Supreme Court had delivered a judgment dated 8th September, 1998, entitled State of Punjab & Ors. v. Bakshish Singh where the Supreme Court had upheld the order of the Additional District Judge to the effect that "once a period of absence from duty has been treated as leave without pay', it cannot be legally held that the defaulter was guilty of misconduct for any unauthorised absence from duty. It was contended that counsel for the Petitioner could not be present before the Tribunal where the case was called out for hearing and, therefore, this judgment could not be placed before the Tribunal on that date and the Tribunal without taking note of the judgment in Bakshish Singh's case upheld the order of dismissal. It is further stated that this error was sought to be rectified in the review application which too did not find favour with the Tribunal and, therefore, the Petitioner was compelled to challenge the same by way of this writ petition.

(3.) Before us, the only point urged is that the period of absence having been treated by the disciplinary authority as "leave without.pay" the judgment in Bakshish Singh's case applies on all fours and, therefore, the Petitioner ought to be reinstated in service.