SUKHPAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated2.2.1994 imposing on the petitioner by the respondents a penalty of removal fromservice with effect from 7.2.1994. The petitioner has also challenged the orderspassed by the Appellate Authority on the appeal preferred by the petitioner as alsothe order passed by the Revisional Authority on the revision petition dismissing thesame.

(2.) The petitioner was charge-sheeted under Section 11(i) of the CRPF Act. Thecharge relates to remissness of the petitioner in the discharge of duty. As against theaforesaid charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply to the Memo of charges.The Disciplinary Authority considered the said reply and found that the reply is notsatisfactory and accordingly appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into thecharges framed against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer after completion of theenquiry proceeding submitted his report. The petitioner was afforded opportunityto make a representation which was filed by the petitioner and thereafter, aforesaidpenalty of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner filedan appeal, but since the said appeal was barred by time, the appeal was notentertained and rejected as such by the Appeffate Authority. As against the same,the petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed by the respondents by order25.9.1995. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner preferred thepresent writ petition in this Court only on 1.7.1996.

(3.) Mr. S.M. Hooda, Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before methat the petitioner had over-stayed leave because of compelling circumstances ofhappening of natural calamity which fact although was pointed out to the DisciplinaryAuthority as also to the higher authorities like the Appellate Authority and theRevisional Authority was not taken note of and, therefore, the impugned orders arerequired to be set aside.