Umeshwar Pandey, J. - (1.) -The petitioner, a constable in Civil Police, has challenged the impugned orders dated 22.5.1992 (Annexure-17) and 31.8.1992 (Annexure-18), passed by respondent Nos. 4 and 3 (Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Agra Range respectively) and also the judgment and order dated 17.1.2000 (Annexure-19) passed by respondent No. 1, U. P. Public Services Tribunal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the same.
(2.) IN short facts of the case disclosed in the petition are that the petitioner in the year 1987 was transferred from district Allahabad to district Agra. While posted at Agra, he took ten day's casual leave on 5.7.1990 to come to his village in district Varanasi to see his ailing wife. He had to report back on duty at Agra on 17.7.1990, but he made request for extension of leave and could join the duties at the Police Lines, Agra on 22.8.1990. Thereafter on 18.9.1990, he applied and took casual leave of 14 days with effect from 19.9.1990 for coming to his village to see his ailing mother. As disclosed in para 6 of the petition, the petitioner on this occasion also extended his leave on account of his own illness and could join his duties at Agra only on 1.9.1991 after about ten months. Thereafter on 14.1.1992 he took earned leave of seven days and came to his village home where he stayed till the date when his services were dismissed by the impugned order after the disciplinary inquiry, passed by respondent No. 4, Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra. It is stated in para 7 of the petition that after he came to his village on seven days earned leave, he sustained fracture of his leg bone and that made him confined to bed. Meanwhile, he received charge-sheet dated 25.1.1992. IN the disciplinary inquiry under Section 7 of the Police Act, he was asked to explain those charges which pertained to his unauthorised absence from duty for 36 days, i.e., from 16.7.1990 to 22.8.1990 and 324 days, i.e., from 4.10.1990 to 1.9.1991. The petitioner has further contended that he could not submit his reply to the charge sheet on account of his confinement to bed and he had been seeking time to submit the same through different request letters sent to the INquiry Officer, respondent No. 5. Meanwhile, he received letters dated 9.2.1992, 18.2.1992 and 13.3.1992 (Annexures-7, 9 and 11) from the INquiry Officer reminding him to submit his explanation and to present his defence at the inquiry, which, in case of his failure, could proceed ex parte. He thereafter received a show cause notice dated 16.4.1992 (Annexure-13) from respondent No. 4 directing him to show cause within eight days before the punishing authority (Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra). To this show cause also, as stated in para 17 of the petition, the petitioner by sending a letter expressed his inability to appear and explain on account of his illness. Thereafter on 30.5.1992, the petitioner received his order of dismissal dated 22.5.1992 (Annexure-17). After receipt of this dismissal order, the petitioner filed appeal which was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 31.8.1992 (Annexure-18) of respondent No. 3, Deputy INspector General of Police, Agra Range. It is contended that the petitioner could not attend to the inquiry instituted against him on account of his illness and he was deprived of opportunity of making his defence before the Inquiry Officer. There is violation of principle of natural justice committed by respondent No. 4. The punishment of dismissal from service is extremely disproportionate to the misconduct with which the delinquent was charged. While dealing with the claim petition of the delinquent, the respondent No. 1, U. P. Public Services Tribunal did not consider all these points and the claim petition was dismissed. The aforesaid petition has been contested and counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 5. It is contended in the counter-affidavit that the impugned orders including the judgment of the Tribunal have been passed on justified grounds and they do not call for any interference. The petitioner had not sustained such injury, which could make him so serious as to call for his complete confinement to bed for such a long period. The entire efforts of the petitioner have been towards avoiding the disciplinary proceedings. He was given sufficient opportunity and was afforded-every possible occasion to present his defence and meet the inquiry, but he deliberately avoided and did not participate. The whole conduct of inquiry and findings recorded against him by Inquiry Officer and the consequent order of the punishment passed by the punishing authority are fully justified.
(3.) IN reply to the counter-affidavit, the petitioner also filed rejoinder-affidavit. While reiterating the contentions made in the petition, it has been again disputed by the petitioner that he deliberately avoided participation in the disciplinary proceedings. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the case.;