LAWS(DLH)-2014-7-238

ABRAR ALI Vs. CISF

Decided On July 11, 2014
Abrar Ali Appellant
V/S
CISF Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2000 passed by the Disciplinary Authority thereby directing his dismissal from the Forces with immediate effect. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 01.02.2001 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting his appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority and order dated 31.12.2010 passed by the Revisional Authority whereby his revision petition was dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner was posted as a Constable in CISF, BCCL Unit, Dhanbad. He proceeded on a 2 days' casual leave from 12.08.1999 to 13.08.1999 to attend to his domestic problem, and his 2 days' casual leave was duly sanctioned by the sanctioning authority. The petitioner was to join back on duty on 16.08.1999 as 14.08.1999 was a holiday because of it being a second Saturday and the next being Independence day, it was thus a national holiday. As per the petitioner, he could not join back on duty as he fell ill after reaching the place of his service at Dhanbad where he remained under the treatment of Dr. M. Singh from 15.08.1999 to 19.08.1999 and he was declared fit by the doctor on 20.08.1999, and he thereafter surrendered before the concerned court on 20.08.1999 because of the registration of a case against him under Section 363/366A IPC vide FIR No.260/1999 dated 13.08.1999 at Police Station Katras. The petitioner remained in Jail for a considerable period of time and was released on bail on 31.05.2000. In the meanwhile, respondent No.4 issued a chargesheet against the petitioner on 08.10.1999 and Articles of Charge were framed against him which are as under:

(3.) THE grievance raised by the petitioner is that the Trial Court vide order dated 29.05.2001 had honourably acquitted him from the charges framed against him, in the absence of any evidence brought by the prosecution, yet a very harsh order of punishment of dismissal was passed against the petitioner.