EX CPL VASHISHTH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed that a writ of Mandamus be issued, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the service with all consequential benefits along with back wages as well as to grant the pension as per Rules, as the petitioner has served for more than thirteen (13) years.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents have illegally and arbitrarily discharged him pre-maturily without pension after approximately thirteen (13) years and seven (7) months of service as a radio technician with Air Force Defence System Operator. The order of discharge has been made without assigning any reason and without holding any enquiry and thus violated the principles of natural justice enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In March, 1983 petitioner completed his training successfully. In the year 1985 he was awarded first rate of good conduct pay badge and in the year 1990 he was awarded second rate of good conduct pay badge. It is stated that during this period on three (3) occasions the petitioner was absent without leave for which he was awarded punishments. In November, 1994 due to excess load of work on his mind, the petitioner met with an accident with a tractor trolley. In spite of the injuries and contrary to rules the petitioner was sent to Jaisalmer. On 15.3.1995 the petitioner was issued a show cause notice as to why the petitioner should not be discharged from service under Rule 15(2) (g) (ii) of the Air Force Rules, 1969 and reply thereto was to be filed within ten (10) days. Vide order dated 12.6.1995 the petitioner has been illegally discharged.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of discharge dated 12.6.1995 is bad in law, is arbitrary and is liable to be quashed. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the policy dated 11th September, 1987, but submitted that the proper procedure has not been complied with. He submits that the punishments awarded to the ECHO is on. petitioner from time to time were minor punishments and the same could not have been the basis for discharge.