T.SRINIVASAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari holding the impugned order of removal of the petitioner from service passed vide Order No.P.VIII-10/2000-12-EC-II dt.21/3/2001 by the 5th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all back wages and consequential benefits.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the respondent organization as a constable at Hyderabad office on 29/7/1991. Thereafter, he was sent on deputation to CBI and was relieved therefrom on 30/7/1999 and was supposed to join the respondent organization at Assam. Meanwhile 60 days leave was granted by the Superintendent, CBI and before joining the station at Assam. However, the petitioner fell sick on 20/9/1999, i.e., just before the expiry of the leave period. According to the petitioner, he took treatment in Osmania General Hospital up to 20/10/1999 and was kept on sick list up to 15/1/2000 and thereafter up to 5/5/2000 as per the advice of Osmania General Hospital. He submitted that during this period he met with an accident on 20/4/2001 because of which also he could not attend to the duties. He submitted that he never received any notice from the CRPF, but all of a sudden, he was removed from service vide order dt.21/3/2001 after conducting an ex parte enquiry against the petitioner. He submitted that he had intimated his Commandant in CRPF by telegrams about his leave, but he was never intimated about rejection of his leave application and since the petitioner was not available at the address given at the time of his appointment, the respondents ought to have taken steps to serve notice through CBI or by alternative mode if they could not serve notices on the petitioner by the above mode. He submitted that all the medical certificates were submitted before the appellate authorities, but there was no verification of the said certificates by the authorities and without any basis they held that the certificates are bogus.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.R. Machavaram, submitted that the petitioner had only overstayed his leave and it is not unauthorised absence and the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to the offence of unauthorised absence. In support of his contentions that the said offence is not so grave as to call for removal of service, he placed reliance upon the following two judgments: