Aggrieved by this order of dismissal, the respondent preferred an appeal and the appellate authority held that the disciplinary authority should have afforded reasonable opportunity to the respondent and as the respondent was number served with any show cause numberice number there was any enquiry preceding the dismissal, the order passed by the disciplinary authority was set aside and directed to reinstate the respondent in service.
2003 Supp 4 SCR 1026 The following Order of the Court was delivered Union of India challenges the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna.
The authorities treated him a deserter and issued a warrant of arrest and he was produced before the Chief Judicial magistrate cum Commandant.
After the imposition of the penalty, the Commandant or CRPF issued an order of dismissal from service.
Pursuant to the order passed by the appellate authority, the respondent was reinstated in service on 15.2.1996.
Aggrieved by this order, Union of India preferred LPA before the Division Bench, but the Division Bench disposed of the matter affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge and hence this appeal by way of SLP.
Even after the expiry of the leave, he did number report for duty and overstayed leave without giving any information.
The respondent thereafter filed a Writ Petition before the High Court praying that he may be paid salary for the period 7.11.1994, that is the date of dismissal, to 15.2.1996, that is the date of reinstatement.
In the year 1994 he proceeded on leave and he should have reported for duty on 31.3.1994.
Respondent Madhusudan Prasad was a Safai Karamchari in CRPF.
