P MURUGESAN Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner has stated that he had joined in the Central Reserve Police Force, on 30.7.93, as a constable. As the petitioner hails from Tamilnadu, he is proficient in Tamil. However, his knowledge of Hindi is poor. THE petitioner had been posted in the State of Bihar and he was discharging his duties, sincerely and diligently. While so, the Commandant, 133 Battalion, at Imphal, had issued a memorandum, dated 5.4.99, intimating the petitioner that an enquiry was proposed to be held against him, under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. THE first charge is that the petitioner had overstayed beyond the leave period from 10.6.98, without the prior permission from the competent authority and that the petitioner had reported back in the unit, on 24.11.98, on his own. THE second charge was that the petitioner had deserted the line, on 26.11.98, without the prior permission of the competent authority and without any intimation, which was prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Force. According to the statement of imputation, the petitioner had been sanctioned 60 days of earned leave, only from 11.4.98 to 9.6.98 and he was to have reported for duty at Patna on 9.6.98. However, the petitioner had overstayed without reporting for duty. After the petitioner had reported for duty on 24.11.98, he had deserted the Force after two days and had reported back only on 15.12.98.

(3.) IT has been further stated that the petitioner had again deserted from 133 Battalion HQ lines, in the afternoon of 26.11.98, on his own, without any sanction of leave or prior permission of the competent authority. The petitioner had again submitted an application for resignation, dated 1.12.98, from his home address. In reply to his application, Letter No.W.II-9/98-EC-II, dated 25.12.98, had been sent to his home address with the direction to report for duty. The petitioner had again reported on his own, on 16.12.98. A departmental enquiry had been conducted against the petitioner and the charges leveled against him had been proved. Therefore, he was dismissed from service, with effect from 11.10.99.