SANJAY KUMAR Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was granted five days leave, and since he was granted time to proceed to his home town and return, the leave period was from April 02, 2001 till April 10, 2001. The petitioner was to join back on April 11, 2001. He joined back on June 12, 2001. The department treated the period interregnum April 01, 2001 to June 11, 2001 as unauthorized absence. What had happened was that an FIR No.43/2001 was registered at Police Station J.P.Kalan, Delhi for offences punishable under Section 498A/304B/34 IPC, naming the petitioner, his mother and sister as accused. Petitioner's wife Kavita died with history of poisoning at 1.30 P.M. on April 02, 2001. The death was unnatural and within seven years of the marriage.

(2.) A charge memo was served upon the petitioner proposing to hold an inquiry and the two charges framed against the petitioner were as under: -

(3.) NOW , as regards Article -II of the charge all we have to say is that it is not the charge that the petitioner concealed the fact of he being arrested. The charge is of being arrested and detained in judicial custody from April 29, 2001 to May 18, 2001. It cannot be a charge attracting a misconduct that a person was arrested. It cannot be a charge attracting misconduct that a person remained in judicial custody for a period. There is no culpability in either. The culpability would be, upon proof, of the wrongful act done for which a person is charged and convicted at a criminal trial.