RAJINDER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was serving as a Head Constable in the Border Security Force. He was for some time attached to the Central Sports Team as a wrestling coach from where he was detached in July, 1995. He was supposed to join his duty in 41 Batallion, BSF on 24th September, 1995. Instead of doing so, he reported late on 1st November, 1996 thereby over -staying the authorised period by 402 days. A court of inquiry was conducted and sent to the Force Headquarter at New Delhi, who gave quietus to the matter by regularizing the period of unauthorised absence.

(2.) IN the meantime, the petitioner had proceeded on leave from 3rd April, 2002 to 30th April, 2002. He was supposed to join back on duty on 1st May, 2002 on the expiry of the sanctioned leave which he failed to do. His request for extension was turned down in the absence of any medical certificate supporting the same. The petitioner however continued to absent from duty. He failed to join back at the place of his posting despite an intimation sent to him to do so. A court of inquiry was once again conducted into his absence and submitted to the Force Headquarter for necessary action. The Force Headquarter in turn directed the issue of an apprehension roll to the concerned police authorities for apprehending the petitioner. A team was accordingly sent to the native place of the petitioner in Sonepat, Haryana, but the petitioner could not be apprehended as he was not found residing at his home address for the last one year.

(3.) THE respondents have filed a counter affidavit in which the circumstances leading to his absence from duty have been set out in detail. It is also stated by the respondents that efforts to apprehend the petitioner have failed on account of his being found missing from the place where he was supposed to be residing. In para 7 of the counter affidavit, it is further stated that the request for voluntary retirement of the petitioner was not accepted because a case regarding over -staying of authorised leave was pending against him. It is alleged that the refusal of the authority to accept the resignation letter was communicated to the petitioner well before the expiry of notice period stating inter alias that the request could be considered/processed only after finalization of the disciplinary case pending against the petitioner.