Arun Kumar Mitra, J. - (1.) Instant writ petition has been tiled by the writ petitioner challenging the charge-sheet dated 20/28.7.1988, order of suspension dated 1.9.1988, enquiry report dated 17.3.1989 and final order dated 18.3.1989 passed by the concerned respondent authorities. The writ petitioner also challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 19.7.1989 and the order in revision dated 29.3.1990. The writ petitioner has prayed for writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service on concellation of the, aforementioned orders and has also prayed for writ of certiorari for directing the respondents to transmit the records relating to the aforementioned charge-sheet and the orders referred to above and also prayed for quashing the same and/or to pass necessary order on perusal of the records. The case made out by the writ petitioner in the instant writ petition in brief is inter alia as follows: (i) At the material point of time, the writ petitioner had been working as a Head Constable/Driver under the Central Industrial Security Force being attached to the C.I.S.F. Unit, N.A.L.C.O., Damanjodi, Orissa, and he was a direct recruit to the said post. He joined the service in the year 1971. (ii) The writ petitioner arranged for the marriage of his eldest daughter on 13th April, 1988. According to the petitioner, with a view to performing the said marriage of his daughter the petitioner applied for 20 days half pay leave and 25 days earned leave w.e.f. 4th April, 1988 and also prayed for a loan of Rs. 4,000/- from his G.P.F. with a view to meeting the expenditure to be incurred in connection with his daughter's marriage. The application for loan from the G.P.F. was rejected by the concerned authority and the authorities also declined to grant the leave applied for by him, that is 20 days half pay leave and 25 days earned leave. The concerned authorities instead of granting the leave as applied for granted only 15th days earned leave w.e.f. 4th April, 1988.
(2.) According to the petitioner since the marriage of his daughter was pre-arranged, he had to rush to his native village immediately after grant of such leave. Upon reaching his village the petitioner with a view to securing the money required for the purpose of his daughter's marriage had to move from post to pillar. But the petitioner could not arrange necessary financial accommodation from any quarter within a short time. The petitioner had therefore no alternative than defering his daughter's marriage to 27th June, 1988.
(3.) It is also the case of the petitioner that when he was so seriously busy in getting the requisite funds for his daughter's marriage or for arranging her marriage, call upon notices were issued asking the petitioner to return to his place of work on 22nd April, 1988 and 17th May, 1988 which however did not reach your petitioner at all. Therefore, a further call up notice was caused to be served on your petitioner on 17th June, 1988 requiring your petitioner to return for duties. But as the marriage of your petitioner's daughter was fixed on 27th June, 1988 upon deferment and as there were other formalities to be observed in connection with the said marriage the petitioner could return to his place of work only on 22nd July, 1988.;