K.SARAVANAN Vs. COMMANDANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the records relating to the order passed by the 5th respondent dated 16.09.2013 and communicated on 03.12.2013 in his Order No.R.XIII-4/2013-DA (Estt-II) and quash the same and to direct the respondents to take the petitioner in to the strength of CRPF as Constable with all monetary benefits.

(2.) The petitioner was joined in the Central Reserve Police Force on 24.08.1994 as constable. The third respondent has appointed the petitioner as Constable. He took training at Avadi, Chennai and thereafter at Bangalore and then finally at Coimbatore under the third respondent and then he was posted at Delhi. He was sanctioned Earned leave for 60 days with effect from 05.02.1999 to 05.04.1999. During the leave period i.e., from 01.04.1999 to 10.08.1999 he was suffering from Jaundice and was advised bed rest by the Civil Assistant Surveon Dr.P.Chinapethu. Therefore, he was not able to report for duty after the completion of the earned leave period. In the meantime, the first respondent has ordered departmental enquiry and the charge memo dated 08.11.1990 has been issued for the following articles of charge.

(3.) Thereafter, an enquiry was ordered and the enquiry officer has submitted an ex-parte enquiry report to the first respondent. Based on the enquiry report, the first respondent has passed the final order awarding the punishment of removal from service w.e.f. 04.03.2000. The petitioner was not able to submit the appeal within the stipulated time under Rule 28(e) of the CRPF rules within 30 days. The delay in filing the appeal is due to the problem in the family and due to his illness. In the order, the first respondent has stated that a letter has been received on 18.01.2000. In the letter dated 18.01.2000 the medical certificates and prescriptions have been sent to the first respondent. Therefore, the first respondent should have waited till his ailment is completely cured. But without waiting for that, the enquiry proceedings have been completed and Rule 31 procedure has also been completed, thereby declaring him as deserted. The first respondent has passed the order on 04.03.2000 awarding the punishment of removal from service. Therefore, the petitioner has sent a detailed appeal to the second respondent on 30.11.2002 without considering the ground urged in the appeal properly.