GANGADHARAN S Vs. GROUP COMMANDANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, when he was working as a Constable at the Cochin Shipyard wing under the command of the first respondent sustained injuries while on duty. On 7.2.2010, when the petitioner was put on duty at the gate of the shipyard, he fell on the ground and sustained multiple fracture of his leg. The petitioner had to be under prolonged treatment for the injuries and had to undergo surgery also. The petitioner sought for the sanction of Special Disability Leave instead of medical leave. However, by Ext. P8, his request has been rejected. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext. P8. Adv. P. Sanjay who appears for the respondents has filed a statement. According to the counsel, the petitioner had sustained the fall due to his own negligence. While he was on duty at the gate of the shipyard, his duty was to constantly patrol and to frisk the persons who enter through the gate. Though he was expected to discharge his duties, diligently, due to his own negligence he fell on the ground. His loaded rifle also fell on the; ground. Since such carelessness could have resulted in serious calamities, the petitioner's conduct was taken serious note of. It is, therefore, contended that the denial of Special Disability Leave to the petitioner is in the circumstances justified and proper.

(2.) I have heard Sri. B.N. Shivashankar who appears for the petitioner as well as Sri. P. Sanjay who appears for the respondents. I have also considered the rival contentions anxiously.

(3.) According to the counsel for the petitioner, Rule 44(1) of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 (Rules for short) provides for the grant of Special Disability Leave even in cases where the injury is self inflicted. Therefore, there are no grounds to deny the said benefit to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the injury sustained by him was accidental. However, the above statement is disputed by the counsel for the respondents. According to the counsel, the injury was caused due to the negligence of the petitioner. Since neither Rule 44 nor 45 deals with the injuries sustained due to negligence, it is contended that the petitioner's case does not come either within Rule 44 or Rule 45 of the Rules. Therefore, it is contended that rejection of the request of the petitioner by Ext. P8 is proper.