NIRANJAN PRADHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, seeks to quash order dated 18.08.1997 in Annexure-3, whereby opposite party no.3 has dismissed him from service, as well as order dated 02.06.1999 in Annexure-7, whereby opposite party no.2 has rejected his appeal, and also to direct the opposite parties to reinstate him in service.

(2.) The fact of the case, in brief, is that pursuant to an advertisement for recruitment to the post of constable in Central Reserve Police Force (for short "CRPF"), the name of the petitioner was sponsored by the employment exchange. He participated in the process of selection, on being called upon, and was ultimately selected. As was directed, he joined in the post on 12.04.1991 at Group Centre, Bhubaneswar. Thereafter, he was sent for training and on its completion on 31.07.1992, he joined in the office of Commandant-123 BN, CRPF at Chandigarh as constable. Subsequently, he was transferred to different places and discharged his duties assigned to him. While he was continuing at Nagaland, he received a letter from his village and applied for earned leave from 18.05.1996 to 08.06.1996, which was sanctioned by the competent authority. While on leave, he suffered from Schizofrena and was admitted at District Headquarters Hospital, Bolangir. When the petitioner was undergoing treatment, his treating doctor was transferred from Bolangir to Baripada. Consequentially, the petitioner moved to Baripada for his treatment under the very same doctor. As the petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was mentally disorder, neither could he extend his leave nor join his duty.

(3.) Mr. D.K. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner states that, as the petitioner was visited with the penalty of dismissal from service by Annexure-3 dated 18.08.1997, pursuant to an ex parte disciplinary proceeding, he preferred appeal, but the appellate authority, without entering into the merits, dismissed the same by Annexure-7 dated 02.06.1999 on the ground of limitation. It is further contended that during the period from 01.06.1996 to 04.11.1998, the petitioner was suffering from Schizofrena and was under treatment. Though the petitioner furnished a valid medical certificate along with the appeal memo, without taking the same into consideration, the appellate authority mechanically dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon a judgment of the apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. V. Mst. Katiji and Ors., 1987 AIR(SC) 1353.