- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for respondents and perused the record of the case.
(2.) Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.5.2007 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, allowing the claim petition setting aside the order of punishment, passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
(3.) The facts of the case are that claimant-respondent No. 1 who was a Constable while posted at Firozabad, absented himself from duty for 18 days, thereafter again on seven days, and then again on 4 days. On account of absence from duty, he was punished with fourteen days drill and also for the absence from duty of 18 days, he was sanctioned leave without payment of salary. However, authorities took a decision to hold an inquiry to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the claimant-respondent for his absence from duty in spite of the fact that leave was sanctioned for a period of 18 days. The petitioner took a plea that because of sudden illness of his wife, he had gone to his house to serve his wife. Wife of the respondent was running under prolong illness for 12 to 14 years. The enquiry officer after conducting an inquiry, had proposed to punish the petitioner for stoppage of two increments for the period of one year and sanction of leave without pay for the period during which the claimant-respondent was absent from duty. However, the disciplinary authority had dissented with the inquiry officer and recorded a finding that he is not in agreement with the finding of the inquiry officer with regard to the punishment proposed by the Inquiry Officer and issued a notice to the claimant-respondent. While submitting the reply, claimant-respondent stated that before Inquiry Officer, he had not led evidence to defend his cause on the ground that the inquiry officer assured him that the minor punishment would be awarded vis-a-vis sanction of leave for the absence of his duty. Keeping in view the assurance given by the inquiry officer, claimant had not actively participated in the inquiry proceedings to lead his evidence in defence. However, having disagreement with the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority had punished the claimant respondent with dismissal from service.;