DIRECTOR GENERAL R.P.F. Vs. DIWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the original respondents challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dtd. 9/2/2018 in Misc. Civil Application (Stamp) No. 42 of 2018 as well as the judgment dtd. 15/6/2016 passed in the petition filed by the respondent. The respondent who was working as an RPF constable had approached the learned Single Judge challenging the orders of the penalty initially that of removal which was modified to that of compulsory retirement. The learned Single Judge on merits found that the charge that was imputed and proved against the respondent was that he had remained absent for the period from 9/11/1996 to 23/12/1996. The charge therefore was that he had remained absent unauthorizedly. On the charge being proved, the respondent was imposed a penalty of removal from service. Dissatisfied with the order, he filed appeal. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order. The revision application also met the same fate. On a review being filed, the reviewing authority modified the order of removal to that of compulsory retirement.

(2.) The learned Single Judge on facts found that the accusations of the respondent having remained absent for 44 days was not absence from duty without application or prior permission, but was an absence as a result of compelling circumstances. The learned Single Judge in the judgment observed thus :-

(3.) Perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge would indicate that having found that the absence was unintentional, the respondent deserved to be reinstated in service.