M THOMAS Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL/NS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsels appearing for the parties. The petitioner has prayed for issuing writ of certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of dismissal, as confirmed in appeal and revision, dismissing the petitioner from service.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as constable under the central Industrial Security Force. At the relevant time, he was posted in CISF unit, ITI, Manakapur. A charge memo was issued against him on the allegation that he had overstayed leave with effect from 1. 3. 1988 without getting permission from the competent authority. THE case of the petitioner is that he had come to his native place and since his old infirm mother was seriously ill, he was not in a position to go back. On receipt of the notice relating to the proceedings, he had sent a petition seeking postponement of the enquiry stating that due to illness of his mother, he would not be in a position to attend the enquiry. However, the disciplinary proceedings continued ex-parte and it was found that the petitioner ha d overstayed his leave without any justifiable cause. THEreafter, an order of dimsissal from service was passed. It is the case of the petitioner that no show cause notice was issued to him before the order of termination was passed and even the report of the enquiry officer was not furnished. THE appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected and thereafter the petitioner had filed w. P. No. 20342 of 1993, which was disposed of on 9. 3. 2001 permitting the petitioner to file revision. THE revision filed by the petitioner was also rejected. THEreafter the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1994 (1) LLJ 604 (UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. GIRIRAJ SHARMA), wherein an employee under the Central Reserve Police Force had been terminated from service for overstaying leave and the disciplinary action was quashed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court opined that punishment of dismissal for overstaying in the facts and circumstances of the case was very severe and therefore, the order of the High Court in quashing the order of punishment was justified.