AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H. S. Thangkhiew, J
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
The petitioner is before this Court, being aggrieved with the dismissal order dated 27.10.2021, whereby he has been dismissed on the ground of desertion from service under Section 11(2) of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006.
Ms. S. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had entered service in the year 2005, and the reason for his long absence was due to reasons beyond his control, as he was very ill and though, he had verbally contacted the authorities, he was not afforded any relief. She prays that as the petitioner is a family man with family support, the respondents are liable to be directed to consider his case sympathetically, so that he be taken back in service.
Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI for the respondents submits that the writ petitioner on being admitted to hospital on account of dysentery on 26.10.2018, on the next date itself, had absented himself without any information, for which a Court of Inquiry was instituted. He submits that on completion of 3(three) years of desertion period, the petitioner was then dismissed from service w.e.f. 27.10.2021, vide dismissal order dated 27.10.2021, issued from the headquarters in compliance with the Rules under the Assam Rifles Regulation. He further submits that, this being a clear case of desertion and the petitioner being absented without intimation, the punishment of dismissal is just and appropriate.
Having considered the matter in totality. The fact that the petitioner was absent for 3(three) years without intimation is apparent and has not been rebutted by the writ petitioner himself. In such matters, the writ petitioner who is a member of the discipline force, who is expected to maintain a standard of conduct and discipline, which is higher till other services, his absence has rightfully resulted his dismissal from service. Further, no materials have been brought on record, to substantiate the grounds taken that, the writ petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from attending to his duties.
There being no merit in the writ petition, the same is therefore deserves no consideration and is accordingly dismissed. However, in consideration of the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that the writ petitioner is in acute financial difficulty, the order for recovery of excess pay and allowances dated 07.03.2022, shall not be acted upon.
With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.