Shabihul Hasnain, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the opposite parties. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 11.3.2008 passed by opposite party No. 2, as contained in Annexure -1 to the writ petition. The services of the petitioner have been dispensed with vide order dated 11.3.2008 passed by the Commandant. 11th Batallion. P.A.C., Sitapur, the opposite party No. 2.
(2.) THE facts necessary for adjudication of this case are as follows. The petitioner had been recruited as Constable in 2nd Batallion, P.A.C., Sitapur on 11.10.1984. Subsequently, In the year 1990 he was transferred to 47th Batallion, P.A.C., Bareilly, Unfortunately, on 23.11.1992 the petitioner sustained serious injuries in a road accident while he was in service. The petitioner was referred to the Medical College, Lucknow on 25.11.1993 for treatment. It has been stated that the petitioner salary was stopped on 29.9.1993. The petitioner was required to send medical papers vide letter dated 31.5.1993 which is contained in Annexure -2 to the writ petition. Annexure -3 of the writ petition shows that his case has been recommended by the then Commandant on 1.9.1994 to the Deputy Inspector of General, P.A.C. informing him that the last medical certificate sent by the petitioner Is dated 10.6.1994. It has also been admitted in this letter that the salary of the petitioner has been stopped w.e.f. 24.9.1993. In the same breath the Commandant has accepted the fact that family members of the petitioner were praying for payment of salary but the same was neither paid nor any decision was taken about the status to the petitioner. No decision was taken about his leave. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that stoppage of salary at this critical juncture forced the petitioner to penury and stopped him from getting the medical aid which was his right under the service rules and right to live under the Constitution of India. The petitioner was neither suspended not declared to be on leave without pay nor the services were dispensed with. He was simply forgotten by the opposite parties.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has argued that even if he is considered on leave without information then too the opposite parties were under statutory duty to have passed some order after a passage of five years as required under the fundamental rules. The opposite parties have taken a decision to dispense with the services of the petitioner in the year 2008 while the accident took place in 1992. Petitioner's services have been dispensed without inquiry. There is no explanation as to in what capacity the opposite parties treated the petitioner since 1993 to 11.3.2008. Even the Deputy Inspector General of Police did not take any action and the petitioner remained on the rolls of the department. It is difficult to imagine as to as to what was the status of the petitioner and his relationship to the department. A person cannot remain on leave without information for almost 15 years which have passed from 24.9.1993 to 2008. It is also relevant to mention here that the petitioner who is said to be not reporting on duty was transferred on 25.9.1998 from 37th Batallion, P.A.C. to 11th Batallion. P.A.C. Sitapur and has been relieved in pursuance of the same in absentia. Vide Annexure -4 a letter has been sent to the petitioner on 24.4.2001 stating therein that he has not reported for duty on the transferred post. On 4.5.2001, vide Annexure -5 the Commandant, 11th Batallion, P.A.C., Sitapur sent the petitioner for examination at the medical board level. Annexure -6 is a report of the Chief Medical Officer in reply to the directions issued on 4.5.2001. By this examination report the C.M.O. has recommended that the petitioner can be given some light duty which he will be able to perform. The petitioner has relied upon Rule 47 under Chapter VIII of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities. Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Disabilities Act). For convenience Rule 47 of the aforesaid Disabilities Act is being quoted here below: 47. Non -discrimination in Government employment. - -(1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service; Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post within the same pay scale and service benefits: Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or, he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. (2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability: Provided that the appropriate Government may having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.;