RAKESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a constable in Provincial Armed Constabulary (hereinafter referred to as 'PAC') and at the relevant time, he was posted in 36 Battalion, Varanasi. He applied for five days' casual leave w.e.f. 10.11.2010 and the same was duly sanctioned. The casual leave was to follow with gazetted holiday/weekly holiday. However, the leave granted was not to include gazetted holiday.

(2.) PETITIONER availed the sanctioned leave and did not return after expiry of five days' casual leave, instead he overstayed for the gazetted holiday and ultimately reported for duty much after the commencement of duty hours on 16.11.2010, and therefore, his reporting for duty was treated w.e.f. 17.11.2010. A show cause notice, thereafter, was issued to the petitioner with the allegation that though he had applied for casual leave of five days and only such leave was sanctioned, but the petitioner made interpolation by adding words "with G.H." after "05 days CL w.e.f. 10.11.2010" in the sanction accorded on the leave application. Consequently, petitioner's written explanation was called as to why the sanctioned leave be not cancelled, and the period of seven days i.e. w.e.f. 10.11.2010 to 16.11.2010 be treated as period spent without leave and no salary on the principle of 'no work no pay' be paid. Petitioner submitted his reply and made allegations against the Assistant Commandant, Sri J.P. Singh, of having maneuvered the records to initiated the proceedings against the petitioner and to victimize him with malafide intent. He also stated that the Assistant Commandant was annoyed and he had got him suspended also. The petitioner stated that once the leave application was submitted to the authorities, thereafter he had no access to it, and therefore, no occasion for any interpolation in the sanction of leave contained on leave application was permissible at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner also stated that he had reported for duty on 16.11.2010 and due to lack of transportation he could reach little late, which was liable to be condoned and his joining be treated w.e.f. 16.11.2010, instead on 17.11.2010. Since he reported for duty after expiry of sanctioned leave, there was no reason for him to interpolate the sanction order.

(3.) THE authority concerned examined the reply of the petitioner and it was observed that the interpolation in the sanction granted to petitioner's leave by adding words "with G.H." was for petitioner's benefit, and the petitioner actually took advantage of it and that is why he did not report for duty immediately after expiry of five days' leave, and therefore, the explanation of the petitioner was not accepted vide order dated 18.4.2011. The leave sanctioned in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and the period of seven days w.e.f. 10.11.2010 to 16.11.2010 was directed to be treated without salary, on the principle of 'no work no pay'. An appeal filed before the Deputy Inspector General, PAC, was also rejected on 3.9.2011. Thereafter, a revision application was also filed, which too was dismissed by the Inspector General of PAC on 2.3.2012. Aggrieved against the aforesaid orders dated 2.3.2012, 3.9.2011 and 18.4.2011, the present writ petition has been filed.