RAJESH PRATAP SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Triloki Nath, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Harish Chandra Dube, learned Counsel for the respondents- Union of India are present. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in the matter. On the joint request of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage itself in terms of the Rules of Court.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 16.5.1994 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2 Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and dated 22.4.1997 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1 Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and further for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service.

(3.) The facts of the case of the petitioner in brief are that while he as posted as Constable at Hindustan Thermal Power Station, Kasimpur, Aligarh, he participated in a Volleyball tournament at CISF Unit Raeoareli on 30.7.1993 and remained there till completion of the tournament i.e. 12.8.1993. It has been contended in the writ petition that on 12.8.1993 the petitioner received a message from his home village regarding critical illness of his son, he informed his party incharge and went to his home from where he sent application for leave (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) from 12.8.1993 to 12.9.1993. It has been further contended that the petitioner was served with a charge sheet (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) on two charges i.e. absent without leave for 35 days i.e. from 12.8.1993 to 14.9.1993 and charge of indiscipline. The contention of the petitioner is that on the basis of exparte inquiry proceedings and findings of the case, he was held guilty of charges levelled against him and consequently dismissed from service by passing the impugned order dated 16.5.1994 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition). The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service, preferred an appeal before respondent No. 1- Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs who too rejected his appeal without application of his mind vide impugned order dated 22.4.1997 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition). Feeling aggrieved, he has filed this writ petition.