Major Dhan Singh v. Union of India

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may NO be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO

3. Whether the judgment should be NO reported in the Digest? GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been necessitated for the reason that the petitioner, who is a serving officer with the Indian Army stands attached with the 15 Sector Headquarters since April, 2009 and is not being granted leave. The respondents have contended that the delay in completion of the proceedings is attributable to the petitioner and have also expressed an apprehension that in case the petitioner was granted leave, he would abscond and even flee the borders of the country in order to avoid disciplinary or any other action which may be contemplated against him.

2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has 2010:DHC:5828-DB leave to the respondents for the reason that proposal for his marriage has been finalized and the marriage ceremony is actually fixed on 13th December, 2010. It has further been contended that various ceremonies in connection with the marriage are to commence from 8th December, 2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a reasonable period is required by the petitioner also to make arrangements for the same. The photocopy of a marriage card has been handed over in court which is taken on record. As per this card, the marriage is to be solemnized at the petitioner’s village which is located in District Rohtas, Bihar.

3. Major Rahul Soni representing the respondents has handed over a copy of a signal dated 29th November, 2010 received from the Discipline and Vigilance Branch of the Headquarter of 16 Corps. As per this signal, it appears that the respondents have permitted twelve days leave to the petitioner which accrues to his credit as balance of his annual leave subject to the condition of a surety or an affidavit that the petitioner would rejoin by the due date or expiry of such leave. The respondents have also suggested that the petitioner’s passport is required to be deposited before giving him the permission to proceed on leave.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would have no objection for compliance of these requirements. However, it is submitted that the petitioner’s passport is lying at his brother’s residence at Delhi and the petitioner could access the passport only if he is permitted to reach Delhi from his current posting.

5. It is submitted by Major Rahul Soni that the petitioner’s movement to Delhi would be facilitated by the respondents to enable compliance with our directions.

6. In view of the above, on a consideration of the rival contentions, we direct as follows:-

(i) The petitioner shall be permitted to proceed on leave for twelve days in terms of the signal aforenoted upon and subject to his furnishing an affidavit by way of undertaking to this court that he would rejoin his current position/posting on expiry of the period of twelve days from commencement of his leave.

(ii) The petitioner shall also deposit his passport with the Registrar (Appellate).

(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the boundaries of the country during the period of his leave. An undertaking on affidavit to this effect shall be filed.

(iv) The respondents shall ensure that the petitioner reaches Delhi by the 6th of December, 2010.

(v) The matter shall be placed before the Registrar

(Appellate) on 6th December, 2010 for compliance. The petitioner shall appear before the Registrar (Appellate) on the said date and tender his undertakings and passport. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Dasti to the parties under signature of Court Master. GITA MITTAL, J J.R. MIDHA, J DECEMBER 01, 2010