WING CDR SJS RANDHAWA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks: (i) setting aside of an order dated 12th December, 2008 whereby the petitioner was awarded 'Severe Displeasure' for 12 months by respondent No. 3; (ii) the quashing of an order dated 23.02.2009, which rejected the petitioner's representation against the said order; (iii) seeks the re - consideration of the petitioner's case de hors the aforesaid administrative action for grant of promotion to the rank of Group Captain (Time Scale) along with his batch mates and finally, (iv) his promotion to such rank with all consequential benefits including back wages, arrears etc.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that while he was posted with Indian Air Force, Head Quarters, Subroto Park, New Delhi; he took admission in a three years MBA course (Part Time) (2006 -2009) starting from July, 2006 to May, 2009 from Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management, Delhi after due permission. By posting order dated 11.06.2008, he was transferred to Head Quarters, Eastern Air Command with effect from 11.08.2008. Through a representation dated 12.06.2008, he sought deferment/cancellation of the said posting order in view of the academic course undertaken by him. His representation was rejected on 15.06.2008, which he challenged in Civil Writ Petition No. 5257 of 2008. On 23rd July, 2008 this Court directed that:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a consequence of this administrative action, the petitioner suffered grossly in his promotion to the next higher rank of Group Captain (Time Scale) and other consequential benefits. He submits that the said action is fully unjustified. He further submits that the Ministry of Defence, Government of India had already written to the Air Head Quarters vide letter dated 22.10.2008 that there was no provision for grant of extraordinary leave without pay. The letter also opined that in the absence of statutory provisions for grant of such leave, the Air Head Quarters should have informed this Court appropriately. The said letter further stated that the alternate option as suggested by this Court i.e., retention of the petitioner till May 2009, was well within the powers of the Air Head Quarters. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this order was never communicated to the petitioner. His posting, however, was subsequently retained in Delhi, where he continued till the completion of his academic course. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner's office was in close proximity of his residence i.e., merely 100 yards away, there was no cause why he would not have attended the office had he been told that his application for leave had not been sanctioned. He submits that the petitioner, who had superannuated, could not have declined to report for duty had he been intimated otherwise. He submits that the petitioner has been a disciplined officer of a disciplined force, always adhering to rules and never contemplated doing anything contrary to the rules. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the censure against the petitioner is unjustified, arbitrary and is liable to be set aside.