LAWS(KER)-2013-5-71

AJEESH THANKAPPAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On May 22, 2013
Ajeesh Thankappan Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER joined the Railway Protection Special Force as a Constable and started his training with effect from 01.10.2005. He completed the training and was posted as Constable at the 4th Battalion, Railway Protection Special Force, New Jalpaiguri with effect from 01.07.2006. After one year, he was transferred to the 5th Battalion at Thiruchirippalli. While petitioner was on the strength of the 5th Battalion at Thiruchirappalli, he was charge sheeted under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (for short, "the Rules") on the allegation that he absented from duty without information to the authority concerned and submitted a petition for resignation from service. He did not remit the amount as directed and thus violated rule 272.9 of the Rules. An enquiry was conducted in which he was found guilty. That was followed by imposition of punishment on the petitioner. His service was terminated. Petitioner preferred Ext.P5, appeal which was rejected as per Ext.P6, order. Against Ext.P6, petitioner preferred a revision (Ext.P7). That revision was rejected by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P10, order. Exhibit P10, order is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was under circumstances beyond control of the petitioner that he absented from duty and in such a situation a harsh punishment to the petitioner was not warranted. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Ravikumar V v. Deputy Commandant and Others (2012 (3) KHC 557). It is further contended that while considering the revision, the 3rd respondent has not adverted to the contentions petitioner had raised in Ext.P7, revision petition, nor perused the documents petitioner had produced.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was undergoing treatment for a serious illness and hence could not attend duty during the relevant time. In the decision cited supra it is held that when absence from duty is on medical ground it could not be stated that he availed leave on medical grounds.