S. Ravindra Bhat, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of Indo Tibet Border Police Force (ITBP) in treating him as having deserted and consequently struck him of the roll by terminating him from the service.
(2.) The brief facts are that the petitioner joined ITBP as Constable in 1995. Whilst on duty he was ordered to be moved from Battalion location Amritsar to report to the Commandant Battalion T.H.Q. (Tactical Headquarter), Bhilai Steel Plant, Chhattisgarh for further duties vide movement order dated 31.03.2010. He accepted the movement order and boarded the concerned train for his onward journey. He claims to have met with an accident on 01.04.2010 at Ghaziabad Railway Station and fell down on the platform and sustained injuries. He claims to have thereafter being evacuated to the District hospital in the early hours of 02.04.2010 and consequently underwent treatment. He claims to have reported for duties but not permitted to rejoin on 26.12.2010. In support of this, the petitioner relies upon a hand written complaint to the police to that effect bearing the seal of the local police station i.e. Barela, Jabalpur, M.P.
(3.) The petitioner in support of his submissions has relied upon certain medical records i.e. certificate of the MMG Hospital, Ghaziabad to the effect that he was suffering from acute hunleago for the period from 02.04.2010 to 20.12.2010. Other than this there is no material in support of his contention that he was hospitalised or that he was suffering from such an acute condition of such severity so as to prevent him from rejoining duty - or at any rate, at the very least severe enough to impair him from communicating his condition to his employer. The respondent in the counter affidavit refutes the petitioner's allegations and states that despite being ordered to report to Chhattisgarh, the petitioner neglected to do so. It is submitted that the petitioner's reliance on medical records is misleading because contrary to his averments in the pleadings, the records do not pertain to the district hospital but of some private hospital. Additionally, the petitioner was receiving OPD treatment. In any case, submits the respondent, nothing prevented the petitioner from communicating with them in a timely manner, detailing the reasons which prevented him from reporting, as well as volunteering to undergo medical examination at the appropriate stage.;