Ram Chandra vs State

Ajay Rastogi, J.—Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order Ann. 2 dated 15th May, 1998 passed by disciplinary authority after holding inquiry under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958, charge Nos. 1 & 3 have been found proved against him and holding him to be a habitual absentee, the disciplinary authority affirmed its earlier order dated 22nd April, 1988 by which he was removed from service.

Petitioner joined service as Constable in 1976. For delinquency committed by him, he was placed under suspension on contemplation of inquiry vide order dated 10th August, 1986 and charge-sheet under Rule 16 of CCA Rules was served upon him dated 29th May, 1987. In all there were three charges levelled against petitioner, of which reference has been made by disciplinary authority in his order Ann.2. Extract of charge nos.1 & 3, which are relevant, are reproduced as under:

vkjksi ua0 1% vki Jh jkepUnz dkfu0 132 o"kZ 1986 esa dkfu0 ds in ij iqfyl Fkkuk Qrsgiqj ij rSukr Fks A fnukad 2@7@86 dks vki Fkkukf/kdkjh }kjk eatwj ''kqnk vodk''k ij jokuk gq, ,oa le; ij mifLFkr u gksdj xSj gkftj gks x;s A

vkjksi ua0 3% vki iqfyl ykbZu lhdj ls fnukad 31@12@84 dks le; 1-30 ih-,e- ij xSj gkftj gks dj fnukad 20@1@85 le; 11 ,-,e- rd 19 ;kse fnukad 20@3@85 ls le; 4 ih-,e- ls 17@4@85 le; 11-45 ,e-,e- rd 27 ;kse fnukad 12@6@83 ls le; 6 ih-,e- ls fnukad 8@7@85 le; 11-40 ,-,e- rd 25 ;kse fnukad 24@7@85 ls le; 8-30 ih-,e- ls 31@7@85 le; 11-55 ,-,e- rd 6 ;kse fnukad 3@1@86 le; 12-30 ih-,e- ls 18@1@86 le; 2 ih-,e- rd 15 ;kse xSjgkftj jgk rFkk fnukad 18@1@86 dks iq-yk- lhdj ls rcknys ij jokuk gksdj fnukad 22@4@86 le; 6 ih-,e- ij tk;s rSukrh Fkkuk Qrsgiqj 95 fnukad xSjgkftj jgdj igqaps ,oa iqy ls Hkh LosPNk ls xSjgkftj gksus ds ckn ik;s x;s A vkidk mDr d`R; vuq''kklughurk ykijokg drZO; foeqdkyk ,oa eqtfjekuk gjdrksa dk |ksrd gSa tks fu;ekuqlkj n.Muh; gS A

After the charge sheet was served, a regular departmental inquiry under Rule 16 of CCA Rules was held against him. The disciplinary authority holding petitioner guilty for charge Nos. 1 & 3, finally punished him with the penalty of removal from service vide order dated 2nd April, 1988. Against said order of penalty inflicted upon him, departmental appeal was preferred which was dismissed by a detailed order on 27th July, 1990. Against which review petition was preferred before His Excellency. The Governor under Rule 34 of Rules which was allowed and the matter was remitted back to disciplinary authority to first supply copy of inquiry report as provided under Rule 16(12) of the Rules and proceed after affording opportunity of hearing afresh in accordance with law. It appears that earlier petitioner preferred C.W. No. 5168/95 which was disposed of on 27th February, 1998 directing the respondents to supply him copy of inquiry report and after affording opportunity pass fresh order in accordance with law. In compliance of the order of reviewing authority and so also of this Court referred to supra, respondents served a copy of inquiry report on 30th March, 1998 and his written explanation was called for and after affording opportunity to petitioner, disciplinary authority held the charge Nos. 1 & 3 proved against him and finally upheld his earlier order of removal from service dt. 2nd April, 1988.

However, in ordinary course the order impugned in the instant petition was to be challenged in appeal before the disciplinary authority as provided under Rule 23 of the Rules. But, it appears from the record that in the year 1988 first order was passed by the disciplinary authority and after going through the complete procedure on filing appeal/review subsequent order was passed by the disciplinary authority in 1998 and on 23/7/99 notices were issued by this Court, reply has been filed, but no such objection was raised. In such circumstances, if in 2008 if it is sent to the appellate authority after 20 years it will not be appropriate and thus, considers to hear the petition on merits.

Counsel for petitioner submits that with regard to charge No. 1 the petitioner proceeded on leave after it was duly sanctioned, but since there was a criminal case instituted against him, he could not report for duty and for charge No. 3 his leave was already sanctioned by the authority as extraordinary leave [EOL] and period was regularized as such holding petitioner guilty and passing order of punishment in the facts of instant case is not legally sustainable.

Counsel further submits that even if charges are found to be proved still punishment which has been inflicted upon him is disproportionate and requires to be interfered with.

Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition wherein it has been averred that the procedure provided under Rule 16 of Rules, 1958 was followed and opportunity of hearing at all stages has been provided to him and he has not come out with any explanation for his long absence as such inquiry officer held petitioner guilty and the disciplinary authority affirmed the finding and punished him with the penalty of removal from service vide order impugned dated 15th May, 1998 [Ann. 2].

I have considered the submission of counsel for parties and perused the material on record.

It is not the case of petitioner that opportunity of hearing has not been afforded to him as provided u/s 16 of the rules, particularly, after the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority to supply copy of inquiry report and other material on which reliance was placed and after affording opportunity and explanation has proceeded further to examine the record while passing order impugned.

This Court has gone through the copy of inquiry report and so also order passed by the disciplinary authority. The charge Nos. 1 & 3 have been duly supported by material on record and no reasonable justification came from the delinquent with regard to charge No. 1, particularly, when three days'' leave was sanctioned and he has not reported for duty thereafter and so far as charge No. 3 is concerned, it was proved that he was a habitual absentee and remained wilful absent without giving any reasonable justification.

This Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the disciplinary authority in holding the petitioner to be guilty for charge No. 1 and 3 and inflicting penalty.

As regards submission made by counsel that his leave was sanctioned as such stands regularized, is of no substance for the reason that sanction of leave will not absolve the petitioner from delinquency which he has committed and the disciplinary authority was justified in examining about absence period and wilful absence from duty can certainly be examined which is a misconduct under Rajasthan Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1971.

So far as quantum of penalty is concerned, looking to the nature of charges levelled against petitioner which stands proved. In opinion of this Court, in the discipline force if delinquent proceeds on leave without prior sanction and his whereabouts are not known to employer, these are serious charges and punishment inflicted does not call for interference.

Consequently, I find no force in the petition, the same stands dismissed.