Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

TEJVIR SINGH versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL B.S.F. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Tejvir Singh v. The Director General B.S.F. & Others - WRIT - A No. 16053 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 5399 (26 March 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S.N.Chatterji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.

The petitioner claims himself to be in the service of Border Security Force. In the year 1995 the petitioner had taken 60 days leave and thereafter remained absent without his leave being extended any further. The petitioner also remained in jail in connection with a case under section 302 I.P.C. In Paragraph 8 of the writ petition it has been mentioned by the petitioner himself that he disappeared from service and was engaged in the treatment of his neck.  He has now filed this writ petition after more than a decade of having deserted  the service, with the prayer that he be reinstated in service and also that his representation in this regard be decided.

Admittedly the petitioner has been out of service sicne 1996. The petitioner  was in the armed service, which is a disciplined force. The petitioner himself admits that he had disappeared from service and remained absent without sanctioned leave regarding which the civil police was also asked to search for him and he was found by the personnel of Police Station Muradnagar. The petitioner had also remained in jail in connection with a case under section 302 I.P.C. In such circumstances the prayer made in this writ petition for reinstating him in service after such a long gap with such a chequered history does not deserve to be granted.

This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost.

dt. 26.3.2007

dps

w.p. 16053.07


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.