$~
18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C)No.2107/1999
% Date of decision: 25th January, 2012
SOHAN BIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : None.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
J.R. MIDHA, J.
*
1. No one is present on behalf of the petitioner though the matter was passed over.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23rd December, 1994 whereby he was removed from service on the ground that he overstayed his leave for 288 days with effect from 30th November, 1993 to 11th September, 1994. The petitioner's case is that he was granted 12 days' earned leave from 16th November, 1993 to 27th November, 1993 but he could not resume his duty on expiry of the leave due to serious illness. The petitioner claims to have reported for duty on 12th September, 1994 but was not permitted to join. The petitioner submitted an appeal dated 23rd April, 1995 which was W.P.(C)No.2107/1999 Page 1 of 3 dismissed. The petitioner submitted a revision petition dated 6th November, 1998 which was rejected on 18th November, 1998 on the ground that CISF authorities do not have revisional powers under CISF Act.
3. The respondents in their counter affidavit stated that a chargesheet was issued to the petitioner on 27th May, 1994 which was duly served on him and he failed to report despite acknowledging four call up notices. Since no reply/response was received, an enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer issued the enquiry notice to the petitioner which was not responded. The petitioner was, therefore, proceeded ex- parte and the final order imposing penalty of removal from service was passed on 23rd December, 1995. The petitioner preferred an appeal dated 23rd April, 1998 which was rejected considering gross overstay of 288 days. It was observed that H.C. Sharma, Medical Officer, Meerut had twice advised 15 and 25 days rest to the petitioner and he was thereafter referred to District Hospital, Meerut on 6th January, 1994 but the petitioner instead consulted a doctor at the Ayurvedic Hospital and the medical certificate dated 26th November, 1993 submitted by the petitioner did not appear to be genuine.
4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there are no grounds to interfere with the decision of the respondents as W.P.(C)No.2107/1999 Page 2 of 3 the petitioner has failed to make out any illegality, irregularity, perversity or any jurisdictional error to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, since no one is present on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is left with no option but to dismiss the writ petition in default of appearance of the petitioner and his counsel.
5. Dismissed in default for non-appearance.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
J.R. MIDHA, J JANUARY 25, 2012 aj W.P.(C)No.2107/1999 Page 3 of 3