RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) FACTS are not much in dispute. Petitioner while working as a Constable proceeded on two days casual leave on 17.1.2004. He did not return for duty within time and over stayed his leave. He joined duty only on 25.3.2004. He sought extension of leave on the ground that his wife was suffering ailment and required urgent personal attention. However his superior officer directed him to first join duty and thereafter his case for extension of leave would be considered. Allegedly these orders were not complied with by the petitioner, consequently disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him.

(3.) RECORD perused and returned. From the report of the inquiry officer it is quite apparent that only first charge stood proved against the petitioner. Quite apparently he did not adhere to the orders of his superior officer and join duty on 19.1.2004.