WP(C) No. 23872/2005

Page 1 of 30

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(C) 23872/2005

RAJVIR SINGH

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate.

versus

UOI & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Rajan Sabharwal, Advocate.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

J U D G M E N T

SANJEEV NARULA, J.:

1. 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 20^th March, 1979. He was promoted to the rank of

Inspector, Grade-II on 6^th 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

2019:DHC:116-DB

WP(C) No. 23872/2005

Page 2 of 30

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 18^th April, 1992, seeking sanction of

75 days leave w.e.f. 25^th April, 1992. This request was accepted vide order

dated 14^th May, 1992, and accordingly he was sanctioned leave for a period

of 75 days w.e.f. 1^st June, 1992. A movement order dated 1^st 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. 16^th August, 1992 to

29^th September, 1992. On 30^th 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.

2019:DHC:116-DB

WP(C) No. 23872/2005

Page 3 of 30

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 8^th 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

2019:DHC:116-DB

WP(C) No. 23872/2005

Page 4 of 30

intimation to this office.

Therefore, you are directed to report for duty on