TEG SINGH Vs. UNION OF INIDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING already suffered punishment for misconduct on seven different occasions, the petitioner was alleged to have remained absent from duty without leave for a period of 25 days from 11th April, 2000 to 5th May, 2000. An enquiry into the said charge was conducted which resulted in a finding that the petitioner had indeed absented himself from duty without proper leave. The enquiry proceedings eventually culminated in an order dated 25th July, 2001 by which the competent authority directed the reduction of the petitioner by one increment in the pay scale of Rs.3350/- to Rs.3275/- for a period of 3 years. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which too failed and was dismissed. A revision petition filed thereafter also was similarly dismissed by the prescribed Revisional Authority. The petitioner has notwithstanding the appellate and revisional orders chosen to file the present writ petition only against the initial order of punishment passed against him.

(2.) IT is argued on his behalf by Mr. Anand Mishra that the petitioner had to absent from duty without leave on account of the fact that he had to file the petition in this Court challenging two earlier punishment orders passed against him. He submits that the petitioner had applied for leave which was unfairly denied to him leaving no option for him except to absent from the duty without leave to institute C.W. 2694/2000 challenging the two earlier punishment orders. We are not impressed by that submission. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner, as a member of the Armed Forces, was not entitled to leave the police lines, where he was posted, unauthorisedly and remain absent from duty for a long period of 25 days. There is nothing on record before us to suggest that any leave application has been filed by him. In any event, even if such an application had been filed, the competent authority was entitled to decline the same in the exigencies of service. IT is also noteworthy that C.W. 2694/2000 filed by the petitioner challenging the punishment orders earlier issued against him, was dismissed by this court for non-prosecution by order dated 29th January, 2002, a copy whereof is produced before us by learned counsel for the petitioner in the course of hearing. This implies that the petitioner was not diligent even in pursuing the writ petition for whose sake he had absented from duty. Suffice it to say that in the absence of any challenge to the Appellate and the Revisional orders passed by the competent authorities and in the absence of any perversity in the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer or the punishment imposed upon him, we see no reason to interfere with the order impugned in this petition which fails and is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.