JOGINDER PAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.7.2012 (Annexure P -2), whereby petitioner was dismissed from service and also the order dated 7.6.2013 (Annexure P -5), whereby appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, upholding the order of dismissal from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner absented from service because of compelling circumstances which were beyond his control. He was facing adverse circumstances at home, because of which he remained mentally upset. He next contended that when the petitioner appeared before the respondent authorities, mentioning the abovesaid material facts, the same were not taken into consideration, while passing both the impugned orders. He prays for setting aside the impugned orders, by allowing the present writ petition.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, instant one has not been found to be a fit case, warranting interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.

(3.) IT is a matter of record and not in dispute that during his entire service of 8 years and about 7 months, petitioner absented himself without leave as many as on nine occasions. He overstayed leave on four occasions. Petitioner had to undergo rigorous imprisonment on eight occasions for committing various offences under the BSF Act and statutory rules made thereunder. Even an FIR was lodged against the petitioner. He was directed to resume his duty by issuing an official communication by way of registered A.D. Post but the petitioner did not respond. Petitioner was a member of disciplined force. Having considered the above -said undisputed facts, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the respondent authorities committed no error of law, while passing the impugned orders and the same deserve to be upheld.