Param Nath vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Sandeep Mehta, J—By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the legality and validity of the order (Annex. 5) dated 14.11.2008, order (Annex. 6) dated 17.1.2011 and the order (Annex. 7) dated 15.12.2011.

The petitioner was inducted in service as a Constable in the Police Department on 24.3.1998. He claims to have suddenly fallen ill on 4.8.2007 and supposedly, had to remain on bed rest for a long period of time on medical advice.

A charge-sheet dated 13.3.2008 under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules was issued to the petitioner with the allegations of remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty from 4.8.2007 onwards. The SHO Police Station Sadar was appointed as inquiry officer to conduct the departmental inquiry against the petitioner. Memorandum of allegations and articles of charges were forwarded to the petitioner. The petitioner further claims that he did not receive the charge-sheet as he was bedridden and therefore, he could not appear before the inquiry officer, who directed ex-parte proceedings in the matter. After concluding the inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted his report dated 13.10.2008 to the disciplinary authority finding that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from duty on 22 occasions and was continuously unauthorisedly absent for 224 days preceding the charge-sheet and the charges were found proved against the petitioner. The petitioner''s disciplinary authority being the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner issued a show cause notice dated 14.10.2008 to the petitioner under Article 311 of the Constitution of India giving him liberty to submit a representation in the matter. The petitioner was intimated that in case, he failed to reply to the notice, an ex parte decision would be taken against him. The petitioner submitted an explanation mentioning therein that he had proceeded on leave on 25.9.2006 and during his leave period, he fell down from the stairs and got injured. It was also stated in the explanation that the petitioner would join duties as soon as he recovered. The disciplinary authority thereafter being dissatisfied with the petitioner''s explanation, passed the order (Annex. 5) dated 14.11.2008, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and terminated him from service. Being aggrieved of the above termination order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority being the Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner. The appellate authority found that the ground raised by the petitioner regarding his alleged ailment (fracture in the spinal cord) was absolutely frivolous, inasmuch as, no supporting document was submitted by the petitioner to substantiate the said assertion. Be that as it may, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority by its order (Annex. 6) dated 17.1.2011. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the appeal, the petitioner submitted a review application to the Governor, which was dismissed by order (Annex. 7) dated 15.12.2011.

Four years after the dismissal of the review application, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition assailing the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority as well as the reviewing authority.

I have heard the arguments advanced by Shri R.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the material available on record.

It is admitted that the petitioner was employed as a Constable in the Police Department, which is a disciplined force. He admittedly remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for a period of 211 days in relation whereto, the charge-sheet in question was issued to him. It was clearly set out in the charge-sheet that the petitioner had earlier also, on no less than 22 occasions, absented from duty. During the course of the inquiry, the department proved its case by leading cogent evidence. However, the petitioner of his own volition, chose not to participate in the inquiry and did not lead any defence despite opportunity being provided to him. From the above facts, it is evident that the petitioner was habitually avoiding the performance of duty as a Constable by remaining repeatedly absent. Admittedly, the petitioner despite service of the notices forwarded to him by the inquiry officer, did not care to participate in the inquiry and did not participate therein also. These facts are clearly indicative of the defiant attitude of the petitioner and nothing beyond that. The plea which the petitioner took for explaining his unauthorized absence was that he had gone home after obtaining leave and there, he fell down from the stairs and his spinal cord was fractured. Suffice it to say that no supporting material was submitted by the petitioner at any stage of the proceedings in order to substantiate this defence. The inquiry officer concluded that the petitioner was guilty of the charges and forwarded the inquiry report to the disciplinary authority. The inquiry report etc., were forwarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority along with the notice under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The disciplinary authority after appreciating the evidence led by the department and the documents proved on record in detail, arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner had avoided to report for duty and remained unauthorisedly absent for a prolonged period of 211 days in the department which is a disciplined force. Not only this, the petitioner was found to have remained absent on 22 occasions also. All the charges were found proved and thereupon, the disciplinary authority directed the petitioner''s dismissal by the impugned order (Annex. 5) dated 14.11.2008. The conduct of the petitioner as reflected from the above circumstances is clearly indicative of his utter defiance, adamancy and indiscipline. As a consequence, the disciplinary authority was absolutely justified in imposing upon the petitioner, the penalty of termination from service. The appeal and review application preferred by the petitioner were also dismissed way-back in the year 2011. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition assailing the impugned orders after a delay of 4 years and no explanation whatsoever is forthcoming for the delay occasioned in filing the instant writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any procedural irregularity, illegality or perversity in the orders under challenge so as to call for any interference therein, in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is hereby dismissed summarily.

No order as to costs.