PRATIBHA RANI, J. - (1.) FOR almost about a quarter of century the petitioner has been litigating to challenge the penalty of dismissal from service awarded by the Disciplinary Authority on October 19, 1990. For petitioner it appears to be cause which he is pursuing at his convenience by keeping the issue of his dismissal alive knowing fully well that during inquiry proceedings he pleaded guilty to the article of charge before the Inquiry Officer and did not retract even after the time was given to him to give a second thought before making a plea of guilt.
(2.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of the inquiry report dated October 05, 1990 into his alleged misconduct of leaving his duty on April 16, 1990 (forenoon) without any permission. The inquiry report was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to represent. He was awarded the penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal which allegedly remained undecided. Then on March 13, 1991 he filed a revision petition before the Director General, CISF.
(3.) THE petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.3191/1992 which was disposed of on October 12, 2009. As the parties failed to appear on that date the petition was disposed of with following direction: - "8.Suffice would it be to state that the remedy of the petitioner was to challenge the order passed in appeal before the Revisional Authority and thereafter such action as was available to the petitioner depending upon the fate of the revision petition. 9. In any case, the order passed in appeal has to be challenged. 10.We are surprised at the course chartered in the instant petition. We are surprised at the conduct of learned counsel for the petitioner who on receipt of counter affidavit should have requested this Court that since his client has not received the order passed by the appellate authority, the same should be provided to him for further action as per law. 11.Be that as it may, since none appears for the parties we dispose of the petition directing that a copy of the order dated 26.8.1991 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner be made available by the appellate authority to the petitioner. 12.Since neither party has appeared, the direction would be complied by the respondent if the petitioner makes a request that the order in appeal be made available to him." It appears that the petitioner slept over the matter and did not comply with the order dated October 12, 2009 by applying for the copy of the order dated August 26, 1991 by the Appellate Authority. He woke up only on December 23, 2012 when a representation sent by him followed by legal notice dated March 11, 2013. Then he filed W.P.(C) No.7056/2013 complaining that the copy of the order of the Appellate Authority has not been made available to him and that order dated October 12, 2009 by this Court in W.P.(C)No.3191/1992 has not been complied with. Suffice it to note that the copy was to be made available to the petitioner only on request and to make such request the petitioner waited for more than three years from the date of order dated October 12, 2009. This writ petition was also disposed of on November 12, 2013 with direction to the respondent to provide a copy of order dated August 26, 1991 within six weeks from the date of order. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that petitioner joined in CISF as Constable/GD in the year 1983. In April, 1990 while the petitioner was posted in CISF Unit BVFCL Namrup (Assam), he was placed under suspension on March 10, 1990 and was required to sign the suspension attendance register four times a day. He failed to sign the suspension register on April 16, 1990 in the forenoon. A visit to his quarter revealed that he had left for his native place without obtaining any permission, or getting any leave sanctioned. For this misconduct disciplinary proceedings for imposing major penalty was initiated against him under Rule 34 of CISF Rules, 1969 (Old). The petitioner was served with the charge memorandum No.V -15014(25)/GHP/Ad.I/903582 dated June 09, 1990 with the following article of charge: - ARTICLE OF CHARGE -I "That the said No.834290118 Constable Tejpal Singh (under suspension) of CISF Unit, HFCL Namrup (Assam) withdrew from the duties of his office from 16.04.90(FN) without permission, which amounts to neglect of duty within the meaning of Section 18 of CISF Act, 1968." ;