Sohan Bir Singh vs Uoi & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 548 Del

$~
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

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

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