JUDGEMENT
Manish Mathur, J. -
(1.)Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. None appeared on behalf of opposite party no.6.
(2.)This Writ Petition had been filed initially seeking a direction for quashing the order dated 4/5 October, 1993 for initiation of enquiry against the petitioner as also against the charge sheet dated 14.10.1993. Subsequently, the writ petition has been amended and various other prayers have been permitted to be added which relate to the payment of salary and allowances since 1.5.1981 or 9.5.1981 to 31.3.2001 along with increments and refixation of salary as and when the scales of pay were revised. Interest at the rate of 24% per annum has also been sought on such salary and allowances and on the difference amount of Provident Fund, Gratuity and Leave encashment pursuant to the refixation of pay as above. The petitioner has also sought earned leave and promotion along with refixation of his pension.
(3.)The facts in brief are that the petitioner was a substantively appointed Batallion Inspector in the Home Guards and was posted in Jhansi at the relevant time when by means of the order dated 5.5.1981, he was transferred to Meerut. As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, subsequently, the petitioner applied for leave on 10.5.1981 for a period of one month whereafter he tried to join his post on 11.6.1981 at Jhansi but was not permitted by the authorities to do so. It is the case of the petitioner that he kept representing to the authorities for permission to rejoin his post but was not permitted to do so and in fact he was served with a charge sheet dated 14.10.1993 containing four charges, primarily, relating to his absconding from duty with effect from 9.5.1981. The said charge sheet was thereafter challenged in the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had not absconded from duty and had in fact been on leave with effect from 10.5.1981 and when he had not been permitted to rejoin his duties after one month, he kept representing to the authorities who did not permit to rejoin his duties and, therefore, it cannot be said that he had absconded from duty.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.