Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA. CWP No. : 2911 of 2011-C Date of Decision : 21.12. 2011 Mohinder Singh, S/o Shri Salig Ram, Constable No.61492 now 7461492 (SSB), resident of V.P.O. Rajal, Tehsil & Distt. Kangra (HP). …..Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs through its Secretary (Home), New Delhi. 2. The Director General of Security, Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. 3. The Area Organizer (H), Office of the Divisional Organizer, SSB, Punjab & H.P. Division, Chandigarh. 4. The Directorate General of Security, Office of the Commandant, Group Centre (SSB) Sapri, C/o Post Bag No.1, Jawalamukhi, Distt. Kangra (HP)-176031. 5. The Directorate General of Security, Office of the Commandant, Training Centre, SSB, Kumarsain, Distt. Shimla (HP). 6. Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Special Service Bureau, office of the Commandant, 6th Bn. (SSB), Nanpara of Girajaeuri, Tehsil Nanpara, Distt. Bahraich (UP). ….. Respondents. ____________________________________________________________ Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction. __________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Central Government Counsel. - 2 - Surinder Singh, J. (Oral): By means of the present petition, petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 13.10.2010 (Annexure P-10), passed by respondent No.2 with a further direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension and pensionary benefits treating his period of absence w.e.f. 7.6.1993 till February, 1997 as on medical grounds. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition can be stated thus. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in SSB, Organization of Central Government on 21.12.1974 and posted at SSB Centre, Sapri in Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra. Thereafter, he worked at various places and in the year 1993, he was serving in SSB Training Centre, Kumarsain. According to the respondents, petitioner being an employee of the Disciplinary Force Voluntarily absented himself for more than three years. He had never reported with respect to his illness in M.I. Room where he was posted, even he was not relieved by the SSB Authorities. The case of the petitioner is that he suffered from mental disorder and respondents left him at his mercy and went missing. The respondents denied these averments but took up the stand of willful absence of the petitioner, thus he was accordingly charge sheeted under the CRPF Rules applicable to the petitioner. Since he did not put in appearance even before the Inquiry Officer despite service, he was proceeded ex parte. He was held guilty of willful absence, thus the Disciplinary Authority imposed - 3 - penalty of removal from his service vide order (Annexure P-4) dated 13th July, 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal (Annexure P-7) after the lapse of statutory period in February, 1997 claiming mercy to the Divisional Organizer. In April, 1997 the Commandant Training Centre, SSB, Kumarsain vide letter dated 28.4.1997 (Annexure P-8) requested Divisional Head Quarter to reconsider his case under Rule 28 of the CRPF Rules under which the Appellate Authority could entertain the time barred appeals if deemed fit, which was not acceded to. Since the year 1997 the petitioner did nothing and remained silent, thereafter, he filed CWP No.3977/2010 titled Mohinder Singh Vs. Union of India and Others after about 11 years and vide judgment dated 20th July, 2010, the second respondent/ competent authority was directed to look into Annexure P-9 with that petition to take appropriate action in accordance with law but after reconsidering the representation aforesaid, the Competent Authority rejected it vide its detailed order dated 13th October, 2010 (Annexure P-10), which is challenged in this petition. 3. The relief sought by the petitioner is ostensibly hit by delay and latches. Further he being a personnel of a Disciplined Force should not have shown dereliction to duty. The plea of mental disorder is unsubstantiated. His plea that he went missing because of the said disease is also wrong as the notices were received by him during the enquiry at his home address as is - 4 - apparent from Annexures R-5 to R-9. Even rejoining notices R-10 and R-11 were not responded. The enquiry against him was conducted properly under Rule 31 of CRPF Rules 1955 (Annexure R-12). The copies of medical certificates now produced by the petitioner are only a cover up story. Therefore, the relief claimed by the petitioner can not be granted. However, the respondents are at liberty to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically for grant of compassionate allowance within the parameters of 41 CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 within a period of six months from today on making representation to them with a copy of this judgment. 4. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. 21st December, 2011. (Surinder Singh), k.sharma. Judge.