SAMARJIT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts in this case are that on 4.4.1998 the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force. He proceeded on leave, which was sanctioned to him from 20.7.2000 to 3.8.2000. It is the case of the petitioner that while he had left his village on 2.8.2000 to join duty, he blanked out at the Varanasi Railway Station and he neither joined duty nor returned home and per chance, on 11.10.2000 his uncle found him at Varanasi, of which the father of the petitioner was informed and the petitioner was then admitted in the Hospital at Varanasi. He thereafter joined duty on 3.11.2000. The petitioner was then given a charge -sheet on 11.11.2000, to which he submitted a reply on 17.11.2000. It is claimed that the petitioner again had a memory loss on 14.12.2000 and remained absent from duties ever since then. In the meantime, he was declared as a deserter on 6.2.2001. On the basis of the charge -sheet given to the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted and since the petitioner was absconding, the enquiry was conducted ex parte. In the enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of charge of having failed to report for, duty on 4.8.2000 on expiry of ten days casual leave sanctioned to him. As such, on the basis of the enquiry report, after holding that the petitioner could not become a good member of the force even if he reported back, the punishment of dismissal from service was passed under section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. The appeal of the petitioner has also been dismissed by an order of December, 2001, which was communicated to the petitioner on 31.12.2001. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of dismissal as well as the order passed in appeal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. I have heard Sri Madhur Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Ravi Pratap Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner could not have been declared as a deserter on 6.2.2001 merely because of having remained absent from 14.12.2000 onwards, because as per Rule 31 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 a member of the force can be declared as deserter only after 60 days and such period had not expired.

(3.) IN the end, Sri Madhur Prasad has submitted that the petitioner is a young man and in case if the dismissal order is allowed to stand, in view of the explanation given to Rules 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, he would be precluded from being re -employed in any Government service and as such the order of punishment of 'dismissal from service' be treated as an order of 'removal from service'. He has further submitted that in either case the petitioner would not continue in the service of the force but the petitioner, who has liabilities of maintaining his family and is a young man of less than 30 years, would then be in a position to get a Government job outside force.