JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. The Petitioner who has been compulsorily retired from service has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the orders passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority of the Railway Protection Force (Respondents).

Factual Background

2. The Petitioner was recruited as Sub-Inspector in Railway Protection Special Force on 20th March, 1979. He was promoted to the rank of Inspector, Grade-II on 6th May, 1991 and was posted at Ferozpur. It is the stand of the Petitioner, that at that time, he fell ill with pain in his gall bladder and was admitted to the Railway Hospital, Ferozpur. He was diagnosed with gall bladder stones and was referred to the Northern Railway Hospital, New Delhi, where he was advised to undergo surgery for the aforesaid illness. The Petitioner was hesitant to undergo surgery and opted for Ayurvedic and Unani treatment.

3. The aforesaid modes of treatment being time consuming, the Petitioner accordingly filed an application dated 18th April, 1992, seeking sanction of 75 days leave w.e.f. 25th April, 1992. This request was accepted vide order dated 14th May, 1992, and accordingly he was sanctioned leave for a period of 75 days w.e.f. 1st June, 1992. A movement order dated 1st June, 1992 was issued to the Petitioner to move to Danapur. Petitioner requested for an extension of leave by 90 days, which was allowed for 45 days LWOP (Leave Without Pay) by the competent authority w.e.f. 16th August, 1992 to 29th September, 1992. On 30th September, 1992, Petitioner applied for a further extension of 45 days LWOP, however, his request was not acceded to as he had already availed maximum permissible leave of 120 days.

4. The letter rejecting his request for grant of further extension reads as under:

"Shri. Raj Vir Singh,

Inspector,

Quarter No. A-602

Sector No. 19,

Noida Ghaziabad (U.P)

Sub: Extension of Leave.

Ref: Your Application dated 01.10.1992.

With reference to your application dated 01.10.92, requesting for further grant of extension of 45 days leave on the ground of your treatment, you are hereby informed that no further extension of leave is admissible, because you have already been given the maximum leave (120 days) permissible at a time, in one case, as per extant rules.

However, you are directed to report to the nearest Rly. Doctor for proper treatment of the reported disease of `Gall Bladder Stone'.

Necessary intimation be also sent to this office, accordingly."

5. Thereafter, despite a lapse of 50 days Petitioner did not comply with directions as noted in the aforesaid letter, constraining the Respondents to issue a reminder dated 8th December, 1992, which reads as under:

"To

Shri. Raj Vir Singh, Inspector,

Quarter No. A-602

Sector No. 19, Noida Ghaziabad (U.P)

Sub: Extension of Leave.

Ref: Your Application dated 01.10.1992.

.......xxx........

Your extension of leave was rejected by this office vide registered A/D Letter of even No. (3710) dated 17.10.92 with the direction that if you are not well then report to nearest Rly. Hospital for proper treatment of the disease under advised to this office. But a period more than 50 (fifty day) have elapsed but you have not sent any intimation to this office.

Therefore, you are directed to report for duty on receipt of this letter failing which you will be liable to be dealt under the extant disciplinary rule."

6. The aforesaid letters were delivered to the Petitioner and he acknowledged the receipt thereof. Petitioner ignored the warning given in the aforesaid letter and neglected to join duty and overstayed beyond sanctioned leave. As a result, Respondents issued a charge sheet on 5th March, 1993, inter-alia containing the followings charges:

"ARTICLES OF CHARGES:

Inspector/5029 Raj Vir Singh of 'E' Coy, No.6BNIRPSF is hereby charged for unauthorisedly overstaying, disobedience of lawful orders and utter carelessness, in that he is overstaying unauthorisedly wef.30.9.92 after avai