VIKRAMJEET SINGH CHIB Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The instant writ petition is directed against the discharge order dtd. 28/2/2011, discharging the petitioner from his services as a constable under the Sashatra Seema Bal, SSB, as well as the order dtd. 29/4/2013, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the discharge order as being time barred. The further prayer in the writ petition is to reinstate the petitioner in his service by regularizing the period undergone in litigation by the petitioner and for release of all arrear salary and allowances with effect from April, 2010.

(3.) The petitioner was employed as a Constable (General duty) bearing number 060404828 in 33 Battalion, SSB, Rangia. The case projected by the petitioner in the writ petition is that during his tenure of service he had numerous matrimonial problems and was facing number of cases filed by his wife, Smti. Urvashi Bajju at Jammu. The petitioner was a permanent resident of the district of Jammu (J and K) and during his tenure he was posted at Rangia at the relevant point in time. Because of these matrimonial issues, the petitioner was required to go on leave which although initially was granted for some time, was subsequently denied as the petitioner was shown to have not reported for duties after being permitted to be on leave by earlier orders passed by the superior officers. The petitioner states that he being a Constable General Duty, the various technicalities which are required to be followed for a person to be on leave the petitioner was not properly apprised of the procedures required to be followed and maintained in respect of leave granted. Because of certain technicalities which could not be fulfilled by the petitioner at the relevant point in time he was put to notice and was also awarded punishment for overstaying his leave. This absence period of the petitioner was subsequently however regularized and he was also awarded punishment of line confinement as well as pack drill and extra guard duties. The petitioner was thereafter served with a show-cause notice dtd. 27/12/2010, whereby the petitioner was asked to make a representation within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the showcause notice. The petitioner further contends that pursuant to issuance of the show-cause notice, without following the procedure prescribed, the petitioner was discharged from service by the impugned Order dtd. 28/2/2011. It is submitted that although the representation as required in terms of the show- cause notice, was submitted by the petitioner, a copy of the same was not retained by the petitioner and therefore could not be enclosed the present writ petition. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by order dtd. 28/2/2011 on the ground of limitation without entering into the merits of the appeal.