The issue was whether a retiring officer who has been taking casual leaves to take care of his mother without showing cause had exceeded his leave period, then the post of such officer be canceled or not. This was decided in the case of Rajesh Kumar Kushram v. Union of India, in W.P.(C) No. 14312/2021, on 15th December, 2021, by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manmohan & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla.
The facts of the case are that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the order dated 4th March, 2021 passed by Deputy Inspector General, whereby the representation of the petitioner seeking to reinstate him in service was rejected. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in 26th Battalion as a Constable.
The counsel for the petitioner contends that the Petitioner sought casual leaves on account of illness of his ailing mother from 5th February, 2018 to 25th February, 2018 and his leaves were sanctioned with a direction to resume duty from 25th February, 2018. The mother of the petitioner was suffering from hypertension and hemiparesis and on 15th February, 2018, she fell seriously ill. the Petitioner was hopeful that the condition of his mother would improve and he would be able to return to the battalion within time. However, since the condition of the Petitioner’s mother became worse and she was advised complete bed rest by the doctors, the Petitioner could not return to his unit.
The Counsel for the respondent contends that the Petitioner’s unit sent multiple letters to the Petitioner dated 20th March 2018, 27th March 2018 and 05th April 2018, directing the Petitioner to report back and resume duty. on 25th April, 2018, a one-man Court of Inquiry was ordered wherein it was found that the Petitioner had overstayed his leave without sufficient cause and, therefore, the Respondent decided to take action against the Petitioner in accordance with BSF Act and Rules. He states that the Petitioner in response to the Show Cause Notice dated 16th July 2018, intimated that he could not resume his duties due to compelling domestic problems.
The Deputy Inspector General in the impugned order has given clear reasons for rejecting the representation of the petitioner:
“5. That the Application for reinstated in service has been submitted by the Applicant after a delay more than of 02 years 02 months. But the competent Officer has seriously and sympathetically considered the same. On examining all the aspects of the case, it has been found that the Battalion has taken the entire action of his dismissal, after granting full opportunity to him and as per Rules. In the Application submitted by the Applicant for his reinstatement, no concrete reason/cause has been found, which can justify the continuous absence of the Applicant from duty without any authority/ leave.”
The Court after contemplating the facts of the case has held that, since the petitioner had taken casual leaves in February, 2018 for the purpose of resigning from service. Subsequently, the petitioner had remained absent without authorization from 26th February, 2018 to 28th September, 2018 (215 days). He had not even sought extension of his leaves. Also, since the petitioner had failed to furnish replies to the Show Cause Notice as well as multiple letters sent to the petitioner by the respondents. The Court had decided that there are no merits in the case and had dismissed the petition.
Reviewed by Revanth