MANI KANT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the entire enquiry proceeding, including the order dtd. 14/1/2003, the memorandum dtd. 22/3/2002, the final order dtd. 11/11/2004 and the appellate order dtd. 26/5/2005.

(2.) The petitioner is an employee of the Central Industrial Security Force (in short 'CISF') and at the relevant point of time was posted at the CISF at ONGC, Jorhat, Assam. In course of his employment, the petitioner applied for and was sanctioned 35 days of Earned Leave from 16/3/2001 to 19/4/2001. Since, the petitioner has heart ailments, he was advised treatment from a heart specialist at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences where he was advised to undergo several tests. Since, his condition did not improve while availing treatment at Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, the petitioner had contacted Sadar Hospital on 1/4/2001 and was under the treatment of an Assistant Civil Surgeon. On 19/4/2001, the petitioner informed the authorities of his condition and had requested for extension of leave. On 17/5/2001, the authorities of the Sardar Hospital declared the petitioner fit to resume his duties and accordingly, on 20/5/2001, he had returned for joining his duties.

(3.) Subsequently, on or about 12/9/2001, the petitioner was served with a memorandum of charge issued under Rule 35 of the CISF Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the '1969 Rules'). The petitioner had responded to the said memorandum and had duly brought to the notice of the Disciplinary Authority, all facts and figures including his medical papers. The said enquiry proceeding was decided in favour of the petitioner by a final order dtd. 30/9/2001, thereby exonerating him from the charges. Unfortunately, the Commandant of the CISF unit, ONGC had issued a show-cause notice on 14/1/2002, proposing to review the said case under Rule 54 of the CISF Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the '2001 Rules') and the petitioner was required to submit his explanation. The petitioner had duly responded to the show-cause, whereupon a fresh memorandum of charge dtd. 22/3/2002 was issued in terms of Rule 36 of the 2001 Rules.