GULAB SINGH YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order dated 18.12.2007 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, dismissing the petitioner from service on account of his unauthorised absence from duty w.e.f. 11.1.1995 to 26.9.1995. This order is affirmed in appeal on 27.5.2008 and in revision dated 27.11.2009. A subsequent order of the Director General dated 22.2.2010 rejecting representation is also assailed.

(2.) Petitioner was employed as a Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F. in short). It appears that while posted at Allahabad in January,1995, a movement order was issued to petitioner on 9.1.1995, requiring him to appear before the C.B.I. on 10.1.1995. Petitioner's appearance before the C.B.I. was warranted on account of the fact that the petitioner's uncle Sri S.S. Yadav was an accused in a criminal case being investigated by the C.B.I., and he was not traceable. Petitioner asserts that he appeared before the concerned authority of the C.B.I., and he was arrested. According to the petitioner, he was tortured during the investigation to find out the whereabouts of his uncle and, thereafter he was released to search out his uncle and facilitate the concerned investigating officer. The petitioner alleges that he was traumatized, mentally and physically requiring immediate medical attention. According to the petitioner, he remained under medical supervision for long and was also admitted in different hospitals. It is only after eight months that he could join his duties in August, 1995. On account of his alleged unauthorised absence from duty, ex-parte disciplinary proceedings were concluded resulting in passing of an order of dismissal from service on 26.6.1995. This order was challenged in appeal and thereafter in revision. The revision preferred by the petitioner ultimately came to be allowed with categorical finding that proceedings undertaken against the petitioner were ex-parte and that principle of natural justice have not been complied with by the authorities while conducting disciplinary action. The order of punishment was set aside and denovo inquiry was directed to be conducted. The charge-sheet previously prepared was served upon the petitioner and fresh inquiry proceedings commenced. Petitioner submitted his reply and also furnished materials in support of his plea that absence from duty for a period of 8 months was not deliberate, or intentional, and that convincing reasons and circumstances existed which prevented the petitioner from attending his work. Medical reports were also submitted alongwith his defence. Petitioner also submitted various materials to show that information was also sent to the concerned authorities about the petitioner's illness. The inquiry has been concluded, where after, the disciplinary authority has passed the dismissal order again against the petitioner on 18.11.2007, which is the first order impugned in this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no consideration of petitioner's reply or defence submitted to the charge levelled against the petitioner, at the level of the disciplinary authority while passing the order impugned. The contention is that the disciplinary authority has merely referred to the finding arrived at in the ex-parte inquiry proceedings to hold the petitioner guilty, which is impermissible.