FATEH SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WORKING as a Constable with BSF, Fateh Singh i.e. the petitioner was granted 45 days' leave commencing from 5.4.1990, requiring him to join on 21.05.1990 since leave period would be over on 20.05.1990. He did not join back. Two letters, dated 19.5.1990 and 20.6.1990 were received by the department in which he sought leave to be extended informing that he had fallen sick. No medical papers were enclosed therewith, pleadings to the contrary in the writ petition, are without any proof of any medical papers being sent along with the two letters and for which we would highlight that in neither letter there is a mention nor there is a mention of any certificate being enclosed; none is even referred to.

(2.) ON 3.7.1990 petitioner sent a letter informing that due to poor health his resignation be accepted.

(3.) MATTERS rested till petitioner awoke from a slumber and after about 7 years, filed a representation under Rule 28A of the BSF Rules, before the Director General BSF on 30.9.1997 in which he stated that for all these years he had remained ill and was under treatment from tantriks and vaids and obviously had no proof for the same, in any case furnish none. What was the illness from which he was suffering was not disclosed. On 16.4.1990 the Director General BSF dismissed the representation holding that there was no merit therein and this led the petitioner to file the instant petition.