DIPTY PROSAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was lately posted as Senior Rakshak presently designated as Naik in 1978 was posted at Asansol under the Railway Protection Force. On 4-2-85, when he was posted at Down Departure line Andal there was a microphonic announcement from the office of the Assistant Yard Master that the petitioner was required to see the Rakshak on duty. When he rushed to the Head Rakshak he was informed that his elder brother was lying seriously ill at N.R.S. Hospital Calcutta. On receiving the message, he applied for 7 days casual leave and submitted the application to the Assistant Sub-Inspector-in-charge. Down Departure Yard for making proper treatment of his elder brother. On seeing the serious illness of his elder brother, the petitioner got upset and started feeling unwell and left for his native village.

(2.) The petitioner who was already mentally upset because of the sudden demise of his wife in 1982 became mentally deranged consequent upon the said serious illness of his elder brother. In view of such mental derangement he got treatment of a local doctor for some time. As his condition did not improve he had to be taken by his neighbours and the relations seriously in the said village for treatment of mental illness at the mental hospital at Tara Bhawan Ranchi under thy treatment of Dr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Assistant Civil Surgeon. He remained under his treatment from 13-2-1985 to 3-4-1986 when he was declared fit for duty upon recovery of: mental illness. Upon such recovery, he came to Andal for resuming his duty on or about 5-4-1986 but he was not allowed to join. He came to learn that Senior Commandant Railway Protection Force, Asansol had issued an order of removal of his service in purported exercise of power under Rule 47(b) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) read with paragraph 13 of the Chapter XVI of the Railway Protection Force Regulations 1966. The petitioner complains that no copy of the order of removal of service has been communicated to him.

(3.) Thereafter, the petitioner was constrained by file an appeal under Rule 52 of the said Rules on 14th April, 1986. But the appellate authority illegally and without considering all the relevant grounds for absence shown by the petitioner and without considering the medical certificate xerox copy of which was annexed with the appeal petition refused to interfere with the order of removal of the petitioner from service and dismissed the appeal by the order dated 7-5-1987.