Point of Law: The party who invokes the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 and Article 226 is supposed to the truthful, frank and open. He cannot be allowed to play ‘hide and seek’ or to ‘pick and choose’ facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible. The Apex Court further held that Court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent the abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Gayan, learned CGC appearing for all the respondents.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.1993 issued by the respondent no.4, by which he has been imposed the penalty of dismissal from service w.e.f. 15.10.1993, on account of unauthorized absence of 331 days, from 19.11.1992 to 15.10.1993.

3. The petitioner’s case is that he was enlisted in the Central Reserve Police Force on 05.04.1991 in the 109 Battalion, CRPF. Thereafter he was transferred to the 79 Battalion, CRPF and reported for duty on 16.07.1992. The petitioner went on leave from 06.11.1992 to 18.11.1992. However, due to various ailments suffered by him during his leave period, and on the advice of the doctors, he could not re-join his place of posting on time. Though he requested extension of his leave period, the same was not granted. The petitioner was thereafter declared a deserter in May, 1993 and subsequently the respondent no.4 issued the impugned order dated 18.12.1993, dismissing the petitioner from service w.e.f. 15.10.1993. Though the petitioner tried to re-join his service, he was told that he could not re-join his service as he was dismissed from service. Finding no other alternative, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court vide CWJC No.5972/1996. However, the said case was dismissed vide order dated 31.03.1998 on the ground that no cause of action had accrued within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal on 11.01.2011 before the Appellate Authority, which was rejected on 03.03.2011. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a writ petition, being WP(C) 2424/2014 before the Delhi High Court. The same was dismissed vide order dated 21.04.2014 on the ground that no cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. Thereafter, the petitioner approached Madhya Pradesh High Court vide WP(C) 9236/2014. The same was dismissed vide order dated 08.07.2014 on the ground that no cause of action accrued within the jurisdiction of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

4. The petitioner has thus approached this Court by way of the present writ petition on 01.03.2016, i.e. after more than 22 years of his dismissal from service.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not re-join his place of posting after the expiry of his leave period of 13 days in view of the petitioner suffering from various ailments. He also submits that Medical Certificates annexed to the writ petition proves the fact that the petitioner was medically unfit to re-join his place of posting. He further submits that as the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard, prior to being dismissed from service, the impugned order being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. He also prays for setting aside the order dated 03.03.2011, by which the petitioner’s appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority.

6. Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC submits that the petitioner has not annexed a copy of his appeal petition dated 03.03.2011 in the present writ petition, which would go to show that the petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard and for taking part in the departmental proceeding. However, the rejection of the petitioner’s appeal by the Appellate Authority, as reflected in paragraph 5 of the rejection order dated 03.03.2011 shows that the petitioner had received letters from the Battalion including the letter from the Inquiry Officer. However, he did not give any reply to the said letters. The learned CGC also submits that the Medical Certificates issued by Dr. A.K. Singh dated 23.02.1993 states that the petitioner was under his treatment as an out-patient for infective hepatitis from 14.11.1992 till 23.02.1993. The fact that the petitioner could have re-joined his duty on 18.11.1992 is clear as the petitioner was only an out-pat