RAM KISHAN PALSANIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in the Railway Protection Special Force in the year 1989. The petitioner applied for and was granted leave for the period from 13/4/1994 to 12/5/1994 by the respondent-department, which was availed by him. However, according to respondent-department, the petitioner overstayed and even after expiry of the aforesaid sanctioned leave, the petitioner did not join his duties back after 12/5/1994 and remained absent from duty thereafter. Considering that to be indiscipline and misconduct, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner by the department on 24/5/1995 (Annexure-7) under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 for unlawful absence from duty without submitting any sickness certificate in support of leave. Vide order dtd. 24/5/1995 (Annexure-8), Enquiry Officer was appointed and the petitioner was instructed to attend the enquiry, failure to do so will lead the ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner. The charge levelled against the petitioner regarding unauthorised absence from duty was found proved by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted its report to the disciplinary authority. The petitioner was served with a copy of the enquiry report vide letter dtd. 7/3/1996 (Annex-9) asking him to submit his objections/reply/representation. Again vide letter/notice dtd. 1/8/1996 (Annexure-10), the petitioner was informed about the departmental enquiry and was asked to resume his duties. However, the petitioner failed to join his duties. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority after considering the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer took a decision against the petitioner of removal from service. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of removal from service dated 22/26/5/1997.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the sanctioned leave, the petitioner suddenly fell ill and admitted to various government as well as private hospitals and the petitioner submitted all the documents relating to his treatment including medical certificates of sickness before the department but the same were not considered by the department. Counsel further submits that since he was not well, therefore, could not attend and participate in the disciplinary proceedings.