Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) THE Petitioner, a Constable in P.A.C., remained absent unauthorizedly for 53 days pursuant whereto departmental proceedings were initiated against him. The charges were found proved. An order of dismissal was passed on 09.08.2000. Petitioner's appeal was rejected on 22.11.2000 and revision was dismissed on 22.01.2001, whereupon he preferred Writ Petition No. 9182 of 2001. The writ petition was decided by judgment dated 12.02.2006 whereby this Court partly allowed the writ petition setting aside the appellate and revisional order on the ground that the points raised by Petitioner in his appeal and revision were not considered by authorities concerned hence the appellate and revisional orders were non speaking. The matter was remanded to appellate authority whereupon the appellate authority has now passed order dated 29.03.2006 rejecting his appeal. Three aspects appears to have been raised before the appellate authority.
(3.) FIRSTLY , the absence was wrongly shown since the Platoon Commander was biased and had not granted leave to Petitioner without any just and valid reason though Petitioner met him praying for leave since his wife was ill. This defence was not accepted by observing if the Platoon Commander was acting otherwise it was always open to the Petitioner to approach the higher authorities, i.e., Assistant Commander or Commander. He could have requested them for grant of leave but he did not avail that opportunity and never approached higher authorities. Instead he absented unauthorizedly, deserting P.A.C. camp.;