EX CT SADHU RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NO one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 8th August, 2011 when the matter was taken up for hearing, therefore, this Court had issued Court notice to the petitioner and listed the matter for hearing in the category of after notice miscellaneous matters.

(2.) THE notice issued pursuant to Court orders dated 8th August, 2011 was served on the petitioner through his son, namely, Sh.Sunil Kumar. Despite the service of notice, no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 31st October, 2011. On 31st October, 2011 no adverse order was passed against the petitioner in the interest of justice and the matter was listed for 9th January, 2012.

(3.) PERUSAL of the writ petition also reveals that the petitioner was enrolled in the BSF on 9th December, 1978. In July, 1991, the petitioner was granted leave from 23rd July, 1991 to 13th August, 1991. After expiry of the sanctioned leave, the petitioner did not report back to his Unit. Since the petitioner did not report back to the Unit for more than 30 days and over stayed beyond the leave period, a one man Court of Inquiry under Section 62 of the BSF Act was constituted. Before ordering one man court of enquiry, notices dated 25th August, 1991 and 10th September, 1991 were also sent to the petitioner.