JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek quashing of the order as contained in Annexure-9 by which petitioner No. 2 has been informed that her husband, petitioner No. 1, has been declared 'deserter', and the "connected orders". They also seek direction to the respondents to hold enquiry in respect of the absence of petitioner No. 1 from duty, and to give him all consequential benefits. They also seek stay of arrest of petitioner No. 1.

(2.) This writ petition is basically on behalf of petitioner No. 1. It is not understandable how his wife has joined hands with him as a co-petitioner. As a matter of fact, it appears that it is the wife i.e. petitioner No. 2 who has been making correspondences and representations on behalf of the husband keeping him in the background so much so that in the letter dated 30-5-96 written on behalf of the Director-General, Medical Services (Army) in response to her petition dated 20-1-96 addressed to the Chief of the Army Staff, she had to be advised "that in case you are in correspondence with your husband or knows about his whereabouts, you should advise him to report to Adm. Bn., AMC Centre and School, Luck- now". This was obviously because after the declaration of petitioner No. 1 as 'deserter' and issuance of the Apprehension Roll, he was kept in hiding and all correspondences etc. were made on his behalf by the wife. Be that as it may, I shall refer to petitioner No. 1 as the petitioner in this order.

(3.) The petitioner is a Sepoy Driver in the Army Medical Corps. He proceeded on two months annual leave with effect from 10-6-95. According to the petitioner, during period of leave he fell seriously ill and was treated by one Dr. I.M. Singh, Civil Assistant Surgeon, on 27-6-95. He sent an application for extension of leave on 9-7-95 on medical ground. On 14-8-95 the petitioner was informed that extension of annual leave was not sanctioned. In case he continued to be sick, he should get himself admitted in Military Hospital or District Civil Hospital. According to the petitioner further, he reported for treatment in the Sadar Hospital at Hajipur, which was the nearest Civil hospital on 22-8-95. But since there was no proper treatment, he went to Military Hospital, Danapur, on 24-8-95 where he was not admitted on the ground that his period of leave had expired. These averments of the petitioner have been denied by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. The petitioner claims to have been treated by various doctors. I do not want to offer my comments regarding the petitioner's case in this regard. Expression of opinion may, in fact, prejudice his case. Sometime in November 1995, the telegram as contained in Annexure- 9 was sent informing the petitioner's wife that the petitioner had already been declared deserter.