SHYAM SUNDAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant Shyam Sundar Sharma, who had been discharging duties as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force, and while he was in service, he was implicated in a criminal case under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code on the charge of dacoity. The petitioner -appell0ant herein was taken into custody, as a result of which, he remained away from the service and failed to dis - charge duties as Constable in the Organization. The appellant was arrested on 16.6.1986 due to which he could not report for duty. The appellant, however, had been enlarged on bail on 1.10.1986, but in spite of the fact that he was enlarged on bail, he did not report for duty, as a result of which, a memorandum of charge was issued to the appellant indicating that he had remained, away from the duty and submitted a false .medical report to the effect that he was bedridden on account of illness. The memorandum of charge further indicated that the appellant although was taken into custody on account of a criminal charge levelled against him, be submitted a false medical report and there - after he although was released on bail, he never reported for duty. The memorandum of charge further states that an order of suspension had been issued against him for unauthorized absence, which he had refused to receive while he was lodged in the jail on account of the criminal charge.

(2.) FOR all the aforesaid three charges, a departmental proceeding was initiated . against the appellant and thereafter the charges having been found to be proved, an order of punishment was passed dismissing him from service. The order of punishment was passed on 5.12.1986 and in view of the. order of dismissal, the petitioner remained out of service, all these years. In the meantime, however, the criminal case that had been lodged against the petitioner continued for trial in which he was finally acquitted by the trial court by judgment and order dated 13th of March, 1992.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge, on scrutiny of the entire background of facts and the attending circumstances of the matter, was finally pleased to hold that the petitioner/appellant herein was found guilty of the charge of unauthorized absence which did not require interference for even though he was enlarged on bail in the criminal case which could not have prevented him from discharging his duties, he failed to report for duty. The findings recorded on the charge of unauthorized absence, therefore, were confirmed by the learned Single Judge and he thus refused to interfere with the order of dismissal. Consequently, the writ petition stood dismissed against which this appeal has been preferred.