RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Additional Director General of Police and Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the year 1966 and was posted in various districts of Uttar Pradesh. In the year 1998, the petitioner was posted in District Pauri and applied for voluntary retirement on 06.10.1998. The Superintendent of Police, while processing his voluntary retirement application, found that his application could not be processed as his Character Roll Register was lost while he was serving in Muzaffarnagar and that a duplicate Character Roll was prepared but the same was incomplete. The Superintendent of Police found that such till time as the Character Roll was not complete, his application could not be processed. In this regard, several letters were written to the Superintendent of Police, Moradabad to complete the entries in the duplicate Character Roll Register, so that the petitioner's papers for voluntary retirement could be processed. When no action was taken by the authorities of Moradabad, the petitioner was himself deputed by an order of 12th July, 1999 to go to Moradabad for this purpose.
(2.) The petitioner armed with this order left Pauri Station and proceeded to go to Moradabad but somewhere he got derailed and did not reach Moradabad. When the respondents came to know that he is absenting without authorised leave, a notice was issued, which was duly served upon him, on 13th October, 1999. Inspire of this service of notice, the petitioner did not report for work and continued to remain absent. Eventually a charge sheet dated 5th January, 2000 was issued which was duly served upon the petitioner on 8th January, 2000. Based on this charge sheet, the petitioner reported for work on 29th January, 2000. The petitioner was asked to submit a reply to the charge sheet, which he did. The Enquiry Officer initiated the enquiry proceedings and submitted a reply holding that the charge stood proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority on the basis of the enquiry report issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why a penalty of dismissal of service should not be passed against him. The petitioner submitted a reply and the disciplinary authority after considering the matter issued an order dated 5th January, 2000 dismissing the services of the petitioner on account of unauthorized leave of 194 days. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal, which was also dismissed. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred a revision, which also met the same fate. The petitioner, consequently, has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Rule 56 of the Financial Hand Book, the petitioner is deemed to have retired voluntary, after the completion of three months notice period and consequently no disciplinary proceedings could have been initialed after the expiry of three months notice.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.