(1) IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH BENCH BENCH AT AURANGABAD AT AURANGABAD AT AURANGABAD WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.580/1994 PETITION NO.580/1994 PETITION NO.580/1994 -------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- Subhash Tulshiram Sapkal .. PETITIONER VS The Union of India and others .. RESPONDENTS ... Shri P.A.Pisal h/f Shri P.R.Patil,Adv.for petitioner Shri Alok Sharma,Asstt.Standing General.for Respondents. ... CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE & B.R.GAVAI,JJ. B.R.GAVAI,JJ. B.R.GAVAI,JJ. DATE: DATE: DATE: 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 ... ORAL ORAL ORAL ORDER : ORDER : ORDER : . This petition challenges the order (dated 6/9/1991) terminating the service of the petitioner as well as the order of the appellate authority dated 6/3/92. 2. The petitioner was working with the Indian Army as a Sipoy-Clerk(General Duty). He reported late after the annual vacation and therefore, a charge sheet was issued to him. The petitioner has contended that he had suffered an Epileptic Attack and was being treated in the rural hospital Bodwad from 14/3/1991 to 31/5/1991. Although the petitioner was expected to resume service on 28/3/91, after completion of the annual vacation, he joined service on 9/6/91. It is ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2025 16:14:31 ::: (2) in this background that the petitioner’s services were dismissed after holding a departmental enquiry. The appeal preferred by him was also dismissed. 3. We have perused the affidavit in reply filed by the Union of India. The petitioner was charged with the following acts of Misconduct : (1) Neglect to obey any general, local or other orders, (2) An act prejudicial to good order and military discipline, and (3) Without sufficient cause overstaying leave granted to him. The affidavit indicates that the petitioner was habitually overstaying leave. Details of the periods during which the petitioner had committed the same act of misconduct have been mentioned in the affidavit in reply. He was also penalised on this ground, despite which, the petitioner did not improve his record. In fact by an order dated 21/3/91, the petitioner was declared a deserter. The affidavit also mentions that out of 490 (working) days, the petitioner chose to remain absent for 361 days. 4. In this view of the matter, it is obvious that the petitioner was not interested in his service and continuously remained absent every now and then. In our opinion, there is no need to interfere with the impugned orders which we feel have been reasonably passed. 5. Petition dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2025 16:14:31 ::: (3) [B.R.GAVAI] [B.R.GAVAI] [B.R.GAVAI] [SMT.NISHITA [SMT.NISHITA [SMT.NISHITA MHATRE] MHATRE] MHATRE] JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE umg/wp580-94 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2025 16:14:31 :::