BARIN GHOSH, J. -
(1.) IN a disciplinary proceeding, petitioner has been dismissed from
service. He challenged the order of dismissal before the Tribunal but
failed and hence this writ petition.
(2.) THE fact remains that the petitioner was charged for remaining absent for 218 days during the period between 11th October, 1996 and 17th
May, 1997, for which reason he was suspended on 16th October, 1996 and,
subsequent thereto, he remained absent for ten hours and thirty minutes
when he reported back on 29th May, 1997 after having had been granted a
leave of seven days and, thereafter, he remained unauthorisedly absent
for 75 days from 11th June, 1997 to 30th August, 1997 when he was
accorded five days leave. This charge -sheet was not replied. Petitioner,
however, appeared before the Inquiry Officer and stated before the
Inquiry Officer that he fell ill and, accordingly, went to a private
doctor when the private doctor advised him to get himself treated in the
same hospital, where he was being treated and, accordingly, he went back
to the hospital where he was treated previously and, thereafter, he
joined on 17th May, 1997. He did not explain anything about the 75 days
unauthorized absence from the period 11th June, 1997 to 30th August,
1997. Be that as it may, he held out before the Inquiry Officer that medical certificates pertaining to his absence from 11th October, 1996 to
17th May, 1997 have been furnished to the authorities concerned. This contention of the petitioner, as was highlighted in the inquiry report,
was duly taken note of by the Disciplinary Authority, while passing order
of termination, but he did not state that the assertion that the
petitioner submitted medical reports on 17th May, 1997 is not correct.
The fact remains that that assertion was not put forward either before
the Tribunal, or in the present writ petition calling upon the department
to give a response thereto. The fact remains that during the periods
petitioner remained absent, he did not either apply for leave or inform
any one in his Department that he will not be in a position to attend to
his duties for any reason. Before the Tribunal, it was contended that
there was no unauthorized absence as such so is the contention before us.
The fact remains that on 11th October, 1996, petitioner was relieved by
Narendranagar P.S. in order to enable him to join Deoprayag P.S.
Petitioner went to Deoprayag P.S. only on 17th May, 1997. In between 11th
October, 1996 and 17th May, 1997, petitioner did not inform any authority
or anyone in his Department as to what is preventing him from joining his
transferred post. Petitioner was suspended on 16th October, 1996 for
having had remained absent without authority for a period of 218 days
during the period between 11th October, 1996 and 17th May, 1997. While
the petitioner was on suspension on 11th June, 1997, petitioner was given
five days leave, but the petitioner returned on 30th August, 1997 after
remaining unauthorisedly absent for 75 days. He did not inform anyone as
to what prevented him from returning within the time as was permitted.
Petitioner is contending that his son was lost. He is contending that he
was ill and, accordingly, required medical attention, but the fact
remains that though there was a First Information Report pertaining to
missing of his son, but there is nothing on record suggesting that the
petitioner became ill requiring him medical treatment.
(3.) THAT being the situation, the Tribunal could not as we also cannot hold that there was no unauthorised absence on the part of the
petitioner from duty. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner was
a Constable. It was contended that the punishment is disproportionate.
The Tribunal noted the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court rendered in
the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others versus Ashok Kumar Singh
and another, reported in 1996(1) SLR (SC) 291 and held that, in view of
the said judgment, it cannot be contended that the punishment was
disproportionate. Having considered the said judgment of the Honble
Supreme Court, we have not been able to take a different view.
The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.;