YASHWANT VARMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner challenges the orders dated 22/7/2000 and 12/3/2010 and 14/9/2010, passed by the respondent nos.2,3 and 4. The parent order dated 22/7/2000, dismissed the petitioner from service who was enrolled as a "Constable" in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), consequent to it being found in a departmental enquiry that the petitioner had remained on unauthorised leave for a period of 136 days between 30/10/1999 to 13/3/2000. The said order passed by the respondent no.2 was affirmed by the respondent no.3 in appeal vide his order dated 12/3/2010, and by the respondent no.4 in revision by his order dated 14/9/2010.
(2.) THE case set up in the writ petition is that the petitioner was a "Constable" in the "CRPF" and that during his posting at Bangalore he received a telegram in October, 1999, informing him that his mother had been taken seriously ill. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he applied for 10 days Casual Leave and he accordingly left his post with effect from 14/10/1999. It is then contended that his mother's condition worsened and that it was during his period that his wife also fell ill, as a consequence to which he could not rejoin his post.
(3.) HE has then averred that he applied for leave vide application dated 02/1/2000, but nothing was heard from the respondents. It appears that on account of long and unexplained absence of the petitioner, warrant for his arrest were issued pursuant to which he was arrested on 10/3/2000 and was ultimately produced on his place of posting on 13/3/2000. The impugned order records that a charge sheet dated 16/3/2000 was served upon the petitioner and that no reply was submitted by him. The Inquiry Officer was appointed by the respondents on 25/3/2000 before whom the petitioner appeared on 27/3/2000, and pleaded guilty. It has been further recorded that despite the admission of guilt by the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer thought it fit to conduct proceedings and accordingly proceeded to record the statement of witnesses in the presence of the petitioner and also allowed him to cross -examine the same. Upon culmination of the said inquiry, a report dated 06/5/2000, was submitted and a copy of the same was also forwarded to the petitioner to submit his reply/representation. By a communication dated 17/7/2000, the petitioner submitted that he had already pleaded guilty and that he had committed a mistake under compelling circumstances.;