Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. It is the petitioner's stand that in the interregnum, he had fallen seriously ill and was suffering from hepatitis and when he had fully recovered on 15.12.2002, he resumed his normal duty by presenting himself before the Directorate General, ITBP on 16.12.2002. On reporting for duty, the petitioner was posted to 15th BN, ITBP on 17.1.2013. Thereafter, he was issued a charge sheet under Section 21(a) and 43 of the ITBP Force Act, 1992 (in short 'the Act') on account of remaining absent without leave and for violating good order and discipline on the ground that after being relieved by the CBI on 10.9.1998, he had reported to the Directorate General, ITBP only on 16.12.2002, after remaining absent without leave for a period spanning over four years, three months and six days.

i) Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhury & Ors., (2009) 13 (ADDL.) SCR 487
ii) State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Ram Daras Yadav, (2010) 2 SCC 236
iii) Sunil Kumar vs. UOI & Ors., passed in WP(C)No.2610/2010 on 7.3.2011.

iv) Gayatri Sarkar vs. UOI & Ors. passed in WP(C)No.3063/2014 on 22.1.2016

6. Ms. Palli, learned Senior Advocate also draws our attention to Section 51 of the ITBP Act, which prescribes the punishment awardable by Force Court, and submits that compulsory retirement from service is a punishment, which is lesser than dismissal or removal from service and would have met the ends of justice in this case.