SUKHBIR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this petition is challenging order dated 4.4.2002 vide which he is dismissed from service. Perusal of this order would indicate that this extreme action is taken because of the absence of the petitioner on various occasions without taking formal leave and even when leave applied by him was specifically rejected. In this manner, his total period of absence is 587 days. The order further indicates that on earlier 9 occasions, before this action was taken, he was awarded punishments for offences under Section 39-A, 39-B and 48 of the Army Act. He was tried summarily on previous 8 occasions and some of the previous instances were even admitted.

(2.) The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army (EME) on 28.12.1983. Sometime in the month of June 1993 he applied for 10 days casual leave on the ground that his grandfather has expired and his father desired that he be present during the performance of the last ritual and ceremonies of his grandfather. This leave was, however, not sanctioned. In spite thereof, the petitioner left for his hometown. Since the leave was not sanctioned at all, this act of the petitioner leaving the station was treated as desertion and the matter was reported to the civil police by the respondents. Thereafter, a charge sheet was also issued, which culminated in punishment of reversion from the rank of Naik to the rank of Craftsman (CFN). After this punishment was given to the petitioner, he again applied for 10 days casual leave, for which he gave the explanation that the aforesaid punishment caused him frustration and he suffered acute depression. Though this leave was also not granted, the petitioner again left for his hometown on 11.10.1993. Plea of the petitioner is that after spending some time with his family members when he reported back to duty on 21.10.1993, he was not allowed to join the duties and in these circumstances he went back to his hometown. He again went back to his unit to report for duty on 22.11.1993 as he had received a letter dated 12.11.1993 from the Officer Commanding in this behalf. There were few of the instances wherein the petitioner remained absent from duty without leave or even when leave was categorically rejected.

(3.) It is clear from the aforesaid narrations that the petitioner left the unit and proceeded to his hometown each time even when the leave was not sanctioned. On various occasions when the petitioner was given punishment, after he was tried summarily, he accepted those punishments as he did not challenge those orders. In these circumstances, only on 9th occasion when the petitioner joined the duties on 21.2.2002, after he was apprehended by Civil Police, Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi declaring him as a deserter, the respondent formed an opinion that previous punishments on earlier occasion has not brought any reformatory change and he has committed further offences. Therefore, in these circumstances, an order dated 4.4.2002 was made dismissing the petitioner from service, which records as under :-