UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAJINDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment dated 29.10.2007 of a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby CWP No. 620 of 2006, titled Rajinder. M. vs. Union of India and others, filed by the respondent herein as petitioner against the appellants herein being respondents, was allowed in the following terms:

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal as pleaded by the parties and noticed by the learned Single Judge, are as follows.

(3.) The petitioner was enrolled in the Army as a Direct Entry Junior Commissioned Officer on 23rd March, 1989 for a period of five years under the provisions of Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. 76878/EIA/1155-S/D(Works-II), dated 19th October, 1963. He was discharged on 11th December, 1993. The posting orders were issued from Garrison Engineer Chandigarh to Director General Naval Project, Vizag vide Record Office BEG Roorkee letter No. A9/4903/Vol-83/04/(R) (MES), dated 30th April 1993. Movement orders were passed on 15th February, 1994 by the authorities. The discharge order passed in favour of the petitioner was cancelled vide Records BEG Roorkee letter No.A3/5225/09/Vol- I/R dated 16th February, 1994 consequent to approval of Army Headquarters for grant of regular Junior Commission. The petitioner remained absent with effect from 23rd February, 1994 onwards. He was apprehended on 5th August, 1995. He filed a criminal writ petition No.39/1995 before this Court and pursuant to order dated 21st September, 1995, he was set free by the Army authorities. He reported to DGNP (V) physically on 22nd November, 1996. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, however, he remained absent from 1st May, 1998 onward. The petitioner filed writ petition bearing No. 244/99 in this Court assailing the cancellation of discharge order dated 11th December, 1993. The writ petition was allowed by this Court on 11th March, 2004 and the order dated 16th February, 1994 was quashed and set aside, but the respondents were directed to cancel the discharge order dated 11th December, 1993 in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. The LPA No.33/2004 was preferred against the decision dated 11th March, 2004 but the same was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 3.8.2004.