Gita Mittal, J. - (1.) THE writ Petitioner has assailed the order dated 5th March, 2001 (page 121) whereby the Director General of the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as 'CRPF') agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer finding the Petitioner guilty of the article of charge for which disciplinary proceedings were held against him and imposed a punishment of dismissal from service.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the petition are undisputed. The Petitioner is a trained doctor and had joined the CRPF as Medical Officer on 19th April, 1988 at their 81st Battalion in Patna. He thereafter served with the various battalions of the CRPF at various places. So far as the instant case is concerned, it is necessary to note that on 14th August, 1996, while serving with the 11th Bn. which had moved to Mathura, the Petitioner was also serving at this station. It is contended that, at this stage, the Petitioner sought a transfer to the Signal Group Centre of the CRPF at Ranchi on the compassionate ground that his father was not keeping good health and that the Petitioner's cousin brother who was a doctor and was looking after his father, had prematurely expired on 13th June, 1996. This request was premised on the Petitioner's contention that there was none else at Ranchi to look after the Petitioner's father. The Respondents on 27th February, 1997 rejected the Petitioner's request for such a transfer. The Petitioner was thereafter granted six days casual leave w.e.f. 16th June, 1997 to 21st June, 1997 with permission to avail 15th June, 1997 22nd June, 1997 being Sundays as leave. Unfortunately the Petitioner failed to report back to duty and kept sending representations and requests either for extension of leave or for transfer to Ranchi. It is an admitted position before us that the Petitioner reported to the 36th battalion, where he was then posted only on 1st June, 1999 after the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against him during this period in accordance with law.
(3.) THE challenge on behalf of the Petitioner is premised on the contention that the Petitioner being a dutiful son was bound to look after his ailing and suffering father and that the Respondents had failed to consider his request for transfer to Ranchi on humanitarian ground. It is urged that the Petitioner was compelled to stay away from duty for reasons which were completely beyond his control on the ground of the extreme ill health of his father and that the writ Petitioner's request for extension of the leave ought to have been favourably considered. It has also been contended that there was no justification in the Respondent's failing to consider the Petitioner's request for transfer to Ranchi where his father was residing.;