SANTOSH KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of the order of dismissal contained in annexure -1 dated 19.11.2000. He also want quashing of the order contained in annexure -3 which is the appellate order as well as annexure -4, the order passed by D.I.G. in his revisiona! capacity.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY the father of the petitioner turned up that his son has lost mental balance in the meanwhile and therefore the order of punishment passed against him ought to be recalled. The petitioner also filed an application for his reinstatement to the post. The authority examined the matter in the light of the representations of the father as well as the petitioner but found that the explanation offered was not tenable as it was only to cover up the unexplained absence of the petitioner for more than a year. The authority therefore even at the appellate stage despite re - examining the matter came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not have any valid, or mitigating circumstances based on which the order of dismissal passed against him could be undone. The revisional authority in its order after due appraisal came to the same conclusion.