LAWS(J&K)-2013-12-33

UNION OF INDIA Vs. GORAKH NATH

Decided On December 26, 2013
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
Gorakh Nath Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitioner/respondent was enrolled as Constable in BSF on 01.07.1971. He was selected in February, 1988 for deputation to the Ministry of External Affairs to perform his duties in Indian Embassy at Abu-Dhabi till 11.07.1993. On completion of deputation he was repatriated to Headquarter IG BSF Jammu. Writ Petitioner/respondent was granted 30 days leave by Indian Embassy and had to report to Headquarter IG BSF, Jammu on 10.08.1993. He, instead joined Headquarter IG BSF on 01.12.1993. He justified his absence on the ground of ill health and prayed for regularization of the period of overstay on medical grounds. He also sought voluntary retirement on compassionate grounds. Respondents deferred consideration of his application for voluntary retirement on the ground that the writ petitioner/respondent had to serve for a period of one year after his return from deputation, before his request for voluntary retirement would be considered. He was further directed to report to his new place of posting i.e. 56 BSF by or before 10.02.1994. The movement order in this regard was issued on 18.02.1994. He however, failed to report to 56 Bn. BSF. Repeated communications requesting him to report to duty went without any response.

(2.) The Commandant 56 Bn. BSF, issued show-cause notice to the writ petitioner/respondent on 06.05.1994 requiring him, to show-cause against his proposed termination on the ground of his unauthorized absence from duty. The notice did not evoke any response. The commandant 56 Bn. BSF thereafter, vide No. Estt/56/94/Ab.94/7478-84 dated 09.06.1994 dismissed the writ petitioner/respondent from service w.e.f. 09.06.1994. The period of absence w.e.f. 01.03.1984 was directed to be treated as "dies-non".

(3.) The dismissal order dated 09.06.1989 was questioned by writ petitioner/respondent in writ petition being SWP No. 1183. The case set up was that the order impugned in the petition was passed without enquiry and without giving him opportunity to project his stand.