Shri Alex S/O Joseph John vs Dte Gen Of Military Training
2022 Latest Caselaw 102 Kant

                           :1:


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

     WRIT PETITION NO.104908 OF 2021 (S-DIS)

BETWEEN:

SHRI ALEX S/O. JOSEPH JOHN
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: PLOT NO.14, BEHIND BHATKANDE FLOOR MILL,
RAKSHAK COLONY, VIJAY NAGAR, HINDALAGA,
TQ. AND DIST: 591108.
                                          ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHARAD MALAGOUDA PATIL, ADV.)

AND:

1.     DTE GEN OF MILITARY TRAINING,
       MT-7, INTEGRATED HQ OF MOD (ARMY)
       SENA BHAVAN, DHQ PO, NEW DELHI-10011.

2.     THE PRINCIPAL
       RASHTRIYA MILITARY SCHOOL,
       CAMP, BELAGAVI-590001.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M. B. KANAVI, SR. CGSC FOR R1 AND 2)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NATURE
OF MANDAMUS TO RE-INSTATE THE PETITIONER FOR SERVICE
                                 :2:


WILL ALL SERVICE BENEFITS ETC VIDE ANNEXURE-D DATED
10.08.2021.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                               ORDER

1. The petitioner has sought for a writ in nature of

mandamus directing the respondents to reconsider reinstating

the petitioner into service with all service benefits.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Cook by the

respondent on 25.05.2016 at the Rashtriya Military School,

Belagavi. He was placed on probation for a period of 90 days.

In the meanwhile, he remained absent from 19.08.2016 to

28.01.2017. Since, the petitioner did not report to duty, he was

discharged by the respondents in terms of the order dated

19.12.2016. The petitioner claimed that he was arrested for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304B read with 34 of

the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act. Later, the petitioner was tried and acquitted in the Criminal

Case as per the judgment dated 31.03.2021. The petitioner

therefore requested the respondents to reconsider his case by

reinstating or re-appointing him. The respondents considered

the same and passed an order dated 11.05.2016 rejecting his

request. The petitioner was also informed there is no provision

to re-appoint or provide any equivalent post to the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition

seeking for the direction to reconsider reinstating him into

service with all service benefits.

4. Since, the order of appointment not longer exists,

this Court cannot issue any mandamus in writ in nature of

mandamus to reconsider reinstating him into service.

5. Therefore, the relief cannot be granted for the writ

petitioner. Hence, petition is dismissed. It is open to the

petitioner to challenge the order dated 19.12.2016 before the

appropriate Appellate Authority.

6. All contentions are left open.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SMM