CT. DRV. ISMAIL KHAN Vs. UOI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was recruited in the CRPF as a Constable (Driver) in the year 1985, has assailed the order dated 24th Sept., 2004, passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereunder, he has been reinstated from the date of his joining the Unit, subject to the condition that the period from 28th July, 1995, when the punishment of dismissal from service was inflicted on him, till 1st March, 2004, the date of his reinstatement in service, would be treated as 'dies non'. Pertinently, the order dated 24th Sept., 2004, was modified by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 25th April, 2005 where under, the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect imposed by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 24th Sept., 2004, was set aside and the rest of the order was maintained. The order dated 2nd March, 2006, passed on the revision petition preferred by the petitioner had upheld the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority.

(2.) It is considered necessary to briefly recapitulate the relevant facts of the case. The petitioner was enrolled in the CRPF as a Constable (Driver) on 28th June, 1985. On 13th Dec., 1994, the petitioner had proceeded on 60 days' earned leave on the ground of his father's illness and thereafter, he had applied for extension of his leave period for 30 days and 70 days, respectively through registered letters/telegrams.

(3.) The petitioner's version is that he did not receive any reply to the aforesaid letters requesting for extension of leave and thereafter, resumed his duty on 13th July, 1995, but was not allowed to join duty. The petitioner was asked to leave on 26th July, 1995 where after, he was served with a dismissal order dated 28th July, 1995. Aggrieved by his dismissal order that was based on an Inquiry Report, a copy whereof was allegedly not supplied to him, the petitioner had initially approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, but the said petition was returned for want of jurisdiction. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in this court, registered as W.P.(C). 224/1999. Vide order dated 16th Dec., 2003, the Division Bench had disposed of the captioned petition and observed that the respondents had violated the principles of natural justice as they had failed to afford a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to submit a representation after receiving the report of the Inquiry Officer. As a result, the dismissal order passed against the petitioner was set aside and the respondent was directed to consider his representation and take a fresh decision.