KULDEEP SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the Petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus for setting aside the orders dated 13.05.1992 and 26.05.1995, issued by the Respondents, whereby the Petitioner was removed from service on the grounds of grave misconduct, indiscipline and carelessness.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the Petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 19.05.1989 in the Central Industrial Security Force (for short 'CISF') in the Sports Quota. The Petitioner submitted that on 20.09.1991 he had applied for two days Earned Leave and 20 days Half Pay Leave from 03.10.1991 to 24.10.91 on the ground that his wife was in a family way. The said leave was sanctioned by the Company Commander but later on refused by the higher authorities. The question was that the leave during this period was unauthorized as the higher authorities did not grant the sanction. On 06.11.1991 Petitioner's wife delivered a male child in the state of delirium. The Petitioner proceeded on further leave on medical grounds for a period from 31.10.1991 to 01.11.1991 but did not submit any medical fitness certificate on 02.11.1991 and thereafter absented himself from duty. The Petitioner was found absent by the Respondents since 14.11.1991 and there was no satisfactory explanation to justify his absence.

(3.) On 11.02.1992, the Respondents issued a charge-sheet to the Petitioner on the ground of his unauthorized absence from service and the allegations of misconduct were levied against the Petitioners for non-production of Medical Fitness Certificate on 02.11.1991. The Petitioner had remained absent continuously from duty w.e.f. 14.11.1991. Secondly, the Petitioner was in the habit of absenting himself from service without any prior permission or information. He was informed that if he does not submit any written reply on or before the due date an enquiry under Rule 34 of CISF Rules 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'CISF Rules') would be proceeded ex-parte against the Petitioner.