PRAVEEN KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of dismissal dated 11.10.2001 and the appellate order dated 27.3.2002 whereby his appeal has been dismissed. The petitioner was appointed on 18.11.1995 as Assistant Sub-Inspector. On 8.1.2001, he was served a charge-memo for overstaying from duty on the ground that after his transfer from Dimapur, he was given usual leave of 10 days however, thereafter he did not join duties. It is the case of the petitioner that prior to his transfer, he was suffering from mental illness and he was admitted in CRPF Base Hospital, New Delhi between the period 25.11.1999 and 24.12.1999. After he was given the fitness certificate, he was permitted to join duty but without weapons. It is also the case of the petitioner that thereafter, he again became mentally ill and he was admitted to Davis Institute of Neuro Psychiatry, ' Kanke, Ranchi from 18.8.2001 to 17.9.2001. His father vide letter dated 24.10.2000 informed the authorities about the illness of the petitioner. An enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was asked to report to the enquiry officer within 15 days however, the petitioner did not report to the enquiry officer. A certificate of the doctor and prescription and letter dated 17.4.2001 have been brought on record. The departmental enquiry proceeded ex-parte and the report of the enquiry was sent to the home address of the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not submit any reply and therefore, an order of penalty has been passed. The petitioner preferred appeal which was also dismissed by the appellate authority. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed in which the respondents have taken the stand that the medical prescription do not indicate that the petitioner was suffering from mental illness. After he was declared fit he did not report for duties. He did not join duties till the order of dismissal was passed. Only after the order of dismissal was passed the petitioner made a representation that he is fit to join the duty and he should be allowed to join. The charge against the petitioner was grave and it was found proved in the departmental enquiry. The petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself however, he absented himself from the departmental enquiry.

(3.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents.