GOPAL DASS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a constable in ITBP and was granted 10 days leave with effect from 6/3/2002 to 19/3/2002 vide order dtd. 5/3/2002. It is stated that during the period of leave, the wife of the petitioner, who had already lost three children, suffered medical complication during the period of her pregnancy and as the petitioner was not in a position to leave his wife, the petitioner sent telegrams for extension of leave due to unavoidable circumstances. It is also stated that the petitioner was a resident of border area as the house of the petitioner was located within five kilometers of the border and the Army authorities had issued an order to all the residents residing within five kilometers of the border to leave the area and some time was also consumed for shifting his family to the safe location. The petitioner claims that when the condition of his wife started improving, he joined his duty on 25/5/2002 and submitted a representation dtd. 29/5/2002 demonstrating the reasons of his over staying the leave. The petitioner also claims to have submitted the medical certificates to the respondents.

(2.) It is averred in the petition that the respondents decided to proceed against the petitioner on the allegation of the petitioners over staying the leave for 66 days without sufficient cause and framed the charge-sheet under Sec. 21 of ITBP Force Act. The petitioner has alleged that the respondents did not conduct any enquiry as required under the ITBP Force Rules and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, dismissed him from the service vide order dtd. 12/8/2002.

(3.) The petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 168 of ITBP Force Rules against the order of his dismissal and specified the reasons of his over staying the leave. The Deputy Inspector General i.e. respondent No. 4 vide order dtd. 27/9/2002 rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner, thereby maintaining the order of the respondent No. 5. It is urged by the petitioner that the respondent No. 4 neither assigned any cogent reason while dismissing the appeal nor personally heard the petitioner before deciding the appeal preferred by the petitioner.