IMPORTANT POINT
The court's decision highlighted the discretionary nature of issuing a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and emphasized the limited scope for interference in disciplinary matters, unless there exist sufficient reasons for judicial review.

JUDGMENT

1. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

2. Heard Mr. M. Devananda, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Boboy Potsangbam, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the dismissal order dated 18.1.2005, as it has violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and also the principles of natural justice in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 2.7.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No.2608 of 2012 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back into service.

4. Brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:-

On 2.9.2003, while petitioner was serving as CT/GD in E/23 Bn, CRPF located at Baramulla (J&K) applied 15 days casual leave due to the serious illness of his father and the Officer Commanding also sanctioned the leave on 31.8.2003 and the petitioner also proceeded on leave with effect from 4.9.2003 to 23.9.2003 with the permission to avail 3 days joining time with effect from 24.9.2003 to 26.9.2003. Unfortunately, his father expired due to his illness and the petitioner's wife left him. This leads to serious bouts of drinking and substance abuse, thereby driving him into depression.

4.1. It is alleged that in the year 2003, the petitioner was admitted in RIMS, Imphal after he complained of sleep disturbances and other difficulties association with substance abuse and drinking. The Doctors diagnosed the petitioner as suffering from depression with psychotic features. Disregarding the advice of the Doctors, the petitioner discontinued the treatment and sought help from the quacks, which worsens his conditions. Again in the year 2010, he continued the treatment at RIMS, Imphal till later part of 2019.

4.2. While the petitioner was undergoing treatment for depression with psychotic features ADS since 2003, the respondents initiated departmental enquiry against him on the ground of misconduct and absenting from duty continuously with effect from 27.9.2003 without any permission of the competent authority. In fact, the departmental proceedings against the petitioner was proceeded by appointing only the Enquiry Officer, but the Presenting Officer was not appointed. The report of the Enquiry Officer was presumably communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 29.11.2004 and consequently, the impugned order dated 18.1.2005, thereby dismissing the petitioner from service was issued. Challenging the same, the writ petition has been filed.

5. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. M. Devananda, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner proceeded on leave, however, unfortunately, his father expired due to illness and his wife left him, which lead to serious bouts of drinking and substance abuse, thereby driven the petitioner into depression and he was treated as such at RIMS, Imphal. He would submit that the petitioner was not overwhelmed by the series of unfortunate events that led to his severe depression and could not inform the authorities of his conditions nor could he appear before the disciplinary authority and take part in the departmental enquiry.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that as soon as the petitioner recovered from his depression and came to his full sense, he applied for the dismissal order as well as the departmental proceedings under RTI Act and the same were furnished to him on 21.8.2019. He submits that the dismissal order was never furnished to the petitioner, thereby depriving and forfeiting the right of appeal against the dismissal order dated 18.1.2005 and that the petitioner could not appear before the disciplinary authority during the departmental enquiry due to the circumstances beyond his control. The learned counsel added that by not furnishing the dismissal order, the petitioner was deprived of his right of appeal, thereby vio