BHAG CHAND SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Pradeep Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant. The summarized version of the relevant facts is that the appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) by the Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force in the month of October 1992 was transferred on 21.07.2004 from Ajmer to Anant Nag (Kashmir) i.e. 67 Battalion. As the petitioner and his family, at that point of time, were beset with health and other problems, he represented before the concerned authorities to alter his place of posting at nearby places, like Delhi or Rajas than so as to enable him to take care of his old and ailing parents. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, he also was suffering from cervical spondylitis and lumber spondylitis, as a result whereof, he was not physically in a state to resume his duties. His doctors also advised him rest. He therefore, could not join his place of posting in terms of his transfer, and instead, he took treatment and submitted medical sickness certificates for the period from 01.08.2004 to 20.08.2005. The respondents too reimbursed the amount of some medical bills towards his treatment. However meanwhile, the respondent No. 2 on 30.03.2006, issued memorandum of charges against him imputing unauthorized absence from duties with effect from 03.08.2004. The appellant/writ petitioner did submit a reply contending that in view of his illness, he was not in a position to resume his duties. The respondent No. 2 however on 12.05.2006, imposed on him the penalty of dismissal from service on the charge of unauthorized absence from duties. His departmental appeal having failed, he approached this Court for redress.

(2.) BY the impugned judgment and order, his challenge has been negated.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge, as the impugned judgment and order would reveal, was of the view, having regard to all essential factual aspects, that the grant of medical reimbursement vis -à -vis some of the bills of the appellant/writ petitioner, did not per se denote that the respondents had condoned his prolonged absence from duty. It was held that the appellant/writ petitioner inspite of repeated reminders did not report for duty. He also did not cooperate with the disciplinary enquiry. It was held, in particular, that on 15.09.2005, the concerned Medical Board, on examining the appellant/writ petitioner though had declared him fit, yet he failed to report for duty.