Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Shailendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents. By means of the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 29.5.1998, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service and the order dated 20.2.2000 by which the petitioner has been asked to deposit the Kit issued to him.
(2.) THE brief facts, giving rise to the present case, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable in the Civil Police on 1.4.1965. On 26.10.1995, the petitioner was posted at LIC Building. It is the case of the petitioner that he fallen ill and was advised complete rest till 7.11.1995 by the Medical Officer. On 8.11.1995, the petitioner again fell ill. The petitioner got himself treated at Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital, Allahabad till 14.3.1996. The petitioner remained under treatment of Dr. Rajendra Singh, a Registered Medical Practitioner at Pratapgarh till 4.6.1996. The case of the petitioner is that he moved an application before the concerned authority for sanction of his leave with effect from 27th October, 1995 till 4.6.1996. However, no evidence in this regard has been filed by the petitioner and the same has been denied by the respondents in Paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit. Thereafter, unfortunately on 19.7.1996, son of the petitioner died in a road accident. The wife of the petitioner could not bear the shock and lost her mental balance. The petitioner also lost mental balance and was not in a position to report for duty. After recovery from the mental trauma, the petitioner reported for duty on 8.5.1998, but when the petitioner went to join his duty, he was served with a copy of the notice dated 15.7.1997 (Incorrectly mentioned as 2.7.1997), issued by he Circle Officer, Maharajpur, Kanpur Nagar and also a show cause notice dated 8.5.1998, issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice, explaining reasons for his absence and also moved an application for voluntary retirement. It appears that the application seeking voluntary retirement, moved by the petitioner, has not been accepted. However, by the order dated 29.5.1998, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. It further appears that even after dismissal from service, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service till January, 2000 and also appears that the salary has been paid.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that reasons for absence from duty has been explained by the petitioner in the reply to the show cause notice inasmuch as in the termination order leave for the period 26.10.1995 to 10.5.1998, that is, 927 days' leave, without pay has been accepted. He submitted that no proper opportunity has been given to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer and the procedure provided in Appendix I of Rule 40(1) of the U.P. Subordinate Police Officers (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 has not been followed.;