PANCHAL MAHENDRABHAI MAGANBHAI Vs. COMMANDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

(2.) The short facts of the case are the petitioner was recruited in 122 BN in CRPF as a Constable (Fitter). Somewhere in May, 1995, the petitioner was posted at Nagpur. However, the petitioner was ordered to accompany the convoy of two vehicles to attend the Jammu Elections. On his way to Jammu, at Fagwada City in Punjab, the petitioner met with an accident and he received serious injuries on the left portion of the body, chest and legs. The petitioner was immediately given treatment at Fagwada Government Hospital and thereafter was admitted to Jammu CRPF Hospital. While the petitioner was under the treatment in June, 1995, a statement was recorded by the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his medical certificate to the respondent. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made an application requesting the respondent to count the leave which he had taken for medical treatment as commuted leave. However, on 30.09.1996 without issuing any notice or inquiry, the respondent deducted Rs.507/-p.m. towards the recovery. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It is the case of the petitioner that before deducting Rs.507/- per month towards recovery respondent no. 1 has not issued any notice or no enquiry was held and has straightaway deduced Rs.507/- per month towards recovery. On perusal of the record, I find substance in the said contention raised by the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents-authorities is not in a position to show from the record that the petitioner was issued any notice before deducting Rs.507/- per month towards recovery. Thus, it has to be said that the deduction of Rs.507/- per month towards recovery, is in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the fitness of things, it would be appropriate that respondent no. 1 authority decides the issue afresh, after following the prescribed procedure under the Rules and after giving due opportunity to the petitioner to present his case.