Ambure Nivrutii vs GNCT of Delhi and Others

Sanjiv Khanna, J.—The Petitioner, a constable in Delhi Police, was charge sheeted as he had remained absent for more than 194 days during the period 5th February, 2000 till 23rd June, 2002. The charge sheet further records as under:

Besides the above willful and unauthorized absence of 194 days, 22 hours and 15 mnts. It is further alleged against you Constable Ambure N.R. No. 7435/DAP that on 17.7.02, you were detailed for reserved duty in VI Bn. DAP Hqrs from 8 am but you did not report for your duty and as such marked absent vide DD No. 56 dt.17.7.02, during the said absence period you const. accidentally consumed poison at your residence, Narela. As such you were admitted in Hindu Rao Hospital on 24.7.02 and discharged from the said Hospital on 29.7.02 vide Discharged slip No. 17749. On tis (sic) discharge slip, you were also advised rest for three days which was permitted by RI/VI Bn. DAP. After availing the rest you, Const. Ambure N.R. No. 7435/DAP were due back to resume your duty on 1.8.02 but you did not do so and intimated vide telephone that you have been further advised 10 days more medical rest by Govt. Hospital, Maharashtra. This information was lodged vide DD No. 22 dt. 1.8.02. You Ambure N.R. No. 7435/DAP were also advised that you will be self responsible to get your medical rest permitted as per S.O No. 111. You were due back to resume your duty after availing your so called medical rest (from 1.8.02 to 10.8.02) on 11.8.02 but you did not do as such marked absent vide DD No. 31 dt. 11.8.02. You joined your duty at your own sweet will on 21.8.02 vide DD No. 29 dt. 21.8.02 VI Bn. DAP, Delhi.

The Respondent had issued absentee notices dated 24th April, 2002, 17th May, 2002, 14th June, 2002 and 16th August, 2002, but without any result. The Petitioner neither informed the Respondent about his absence nor reported to the concerned civil hospital for medical examination. The Petitioner had also remained absent from duty with effect from 28th March, 2002 without intimation or prior permission of the competent authority.

The Enquiry Officer after recording evidence concluded that the Petitioner was a habitual absentee and the charges stand proved. On the basis of the Enquiry report, vide order dated 10th September, 2004, the disciplinary authority passed an order holding that the charge is proved and it was observed that the Petitioner is a habitual absentee and is, therefore, totally unfit to be retained in service. Before recording the said finding, the disciplinary authority had given the following reasons:

The above long absences of the delinquent Constable Ambure, N.R., No. 7435/DAP from Govt. duty on several occasions, without cogent reason and prior permission of the competent authority indicate that he has no interest in the Govt. duty and he is in the habit to remain on and off from duty at his own will and volition. The defaulter did not seek permission to avail leave during his absence period. He made no attempt at any stage to follow the C.C.S. (Leave) Rules, 1972 and S.O. No. 111 of Delhi Police. Besides the delinquent Constables did not submit his defence statement against the charge and also not submitted his representation against the findings of the E.O. Moreover, he has also not appeared in the O.R. for personal hearing to explain his grievance in person. His above acts suggests that he has nothing to say in his defence regarding his long absence on different occasions. It is, thus, fair to conclude that his above absence were deliberate.

The Petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 12th September, 2004 on or about 9th January, 2007 after a delay of more than two years. The appeal was belated and barred by time. The appellate authority examined the merits of the case and came to the conclusion that the Petitioner used to go on leave and would remain absent as per his own will and did not follow any rules. It was observed that the unauthorized absence cannot be condoned and the same was an act of indiscipline in the present case. On the question of delay, the disciplinary authority has held that the appeal was highly belated and the delay should not be condoned.

Reliance placed by the Petitioner on the circular dated 23rd July, 1997 is misconceived. In the present case, the Petitioner did not participate in the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer and disciplinary authority. In case the Petitioner had participated and led defence evidence, the aspects with regard to genuineness and authenticity of the medical certificate would have been examined. It is noticed that in the present case repeated letters and notices were issued to the Petitioner to rejoin the duty and also get himself medically examined in the civil hospital, but the Petitioner did not get himself examined. The departmental witnesses were examined before the Enquiry Officer, but the Petitioner did not cross examine them. He also did not lead any evidence in his defence. In fact, after the charge was framed the Petitioner did not appear in the Enquiry proceeding.

In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.