- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. The petitioner, who was working as 'constable' in U. P. Police Department, challenges the orders dated 13-7-1994, 24-11-1994 and 26-8-1997 (Annexures 4, 5, & 8 to the writ petition) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prays for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the same. He also seeks, through this petition, a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate, him in service on his original post of constable in the Department.
(2.) THE facts narrated in the present petition are that while working as a constable at Police Station Holagarh, District Allahabad on 1-6-1992 when the petitioner applied for two days casual leave with effect from 3-6-1992 the same was granted. But inspite of the fact that he was posted on duty of 'santari' at the Police Station on 2-6-1992 he absented without obtaining any leave or permission from the Station Officer concerned. THEreafter, he was arrested by the police of Tarwa Police Station District Azamagarh in a case of murder, which was registered at Crime No. 64 of 1992. He was sent to lockup as a named accused in the aforesaid case and could report to his duty only on 2-7-1992 after his release on bail. THE petitioner was accordingly charged for his unauthorized absence from duty and the enquiry proceeded. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges admitting to the aforesaid fact that he had left the Police Station Holagarh 2-6-1992 after obtaining causal leave for two days with effect from 3-6-1992. He requested the Head Constable concerned for making a note of his departure from the Police Station in the General Diary and on his assurance that the entry in the relevant General Diary about such departure of the petitioner would be made, he left the Police Station. After he reached home, he was falsely implicated in the aforesaid criminal case of murder and the local police which, was seized with the investigation of the case, arrested him. As a result of his detention in the lockup he could come to join his duties at the Police Station Holagarh only on 2-7-1992. The Enquiry Officer, in the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings, found that on 2-6-1992 the petitioner was assigned 'santari' duty at the Police Station from 9 a. m. to 12 noon, but without obtaining permission from the concerned authority, he left the Police Station and neglected his duty. He was found absent without making entry (of his departure) in the General Diary and later on when he reached his village home, he was implicated in the criminal case of murder and rioting etc. and arrested. Finding the petitioner guilty for the unauthorized absence from duty, the punishing authority (SSP, Allahabad), acting upon the enquiry report, awarded the punishment of dismissal.
(3.) THIS award of punishment was challenged by the petitioner in appeal, which too was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 24-11-1994 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition ). Subsequent thereto the petitioner preferred claim petition challenging the order of punishing authority as well as the appellate authority before the State Public Service Tribunal where also he could not get any relief and the petition was dismissed, vide impugned judgment dated 26-8-1997 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition ). The petitioner being aggrieved with the aforesaid three orders of punishing authority, appellate authority and the Tribunal (Annexures 4, 5, & 8 to the writ petition) has approached this Court. While challenging the aforesaid orders, the petitioner took grounds inter alia stating that penalty of dismissal from service imposed against him in respect of the charges does not commensurate with the gravity of alleged misconduct. Such extreme penalty is imposed only in respect of charges of grave misconduct. For unauthorised absence of a day from duty the imposition of extreme penalty upon a civil servant, in unwarranted.;