TULSI RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit of the Appellant-Plaintiff Tulsi Ram and denied him decree for declaration and consequential relief of mandatory injunction sought for by him. By order dated 19-1-1988 of Commandant, Group Centre, SSB, Shamshi (Ex. DD) a penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon him, which he had challenged as illegal, void and unconstitutional, and sought declaration that he may be deemed to be in service and entitled to all the consequential benefits thereof Now, by way of the present regular second appeal he has challenged the decree and judgment dated 23-12-1992 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kullu whereby he has confirmed the decree and judgment dated 31-8-1989 of the Senior Sub-Judge, Lahaul and Spiti at Kullu.

(2.) The brief facts of the cane are that Tulsi Ram was appointed as Constable in SSB, Group Centre, Shamshi (Kullu) in the year 1966. On 30-8-1974 he fell ill and the Medical Officer Incharge found him suffering from Tuberculosis and referred him for treatment to District Hospital, Kullu, where he remained admitted from 2-9-1974 to 8-9-1974. After his discharge from the hospital, Tulsi Ram sought permission to bring his daily-need articles from his earlier place of posting but on the way he got acute pain and became unconscious and was taken to his home where he underwent further treatment. After getting well, he joined his duties but. he was not marked present. Thereafter, his explanation was sought for vide memo No. 2041 dared 30-10-1974 by the Company Commander, D Company, Shamshi which he filed and after considering it, further proceedings were dropped. The Respondents-Defendants took no action for about 12 years but on 4-4-1987 he was served with Memo of Charge Sheet dated 21-3-1987 (Ex. PB) proposing to hold inquiry against him under Rule 27 of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1965 (hereinafter called the Rules). According to him he submitted detailed reply, which has not been brought on record during trial and requested to afford him an opportunity to prove his innocence. His stand is that he never pleaded guilty but the Respondents-Defendants have denied it and have placed on record the proceedings of the inquiry and report of the inquiry to prove that he did plead guilty and despite plea of guilty evidence of the prosecution was recorded on the analysis of which the inquiry report was given by the Inquiry Officer. According to them the cider of punishment is legal, valid and proper.

(3.) This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.