- (1.) AT the very outset, it would be relevant to point out that the stamp reporter had reported that the petition suffered from latches of 3 years and 47 days. The record shows that when the matter was taken up on 21.7.2004, an order was passed granting 3 weeks time to the counsel for the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit explaining the latches in filing the writ petition. No supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, despite the order aforementioned. This court was therefore inclined to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of latches alone. However, a perusal of the order sheet reveals that on 20.9.2013, three weeks and no more time was granted to the Standing Counsel to file a counter affidavit. It is on account of this order of 20.09.2013 that this court has proceeded to hear and decide the writ petition on merits. It would be relevant to record that despite the stop order aforesaid, no counter affidavit has been filed in the writ petition.
(2.) I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(3.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner, a Head Constable, challenging the orders passed by the disciplinary authority awarding him a censure entry and awarding him a days leave without pay on the ground of his alleged absence, which orders have been affirmed by the appellate and the revisional authorities respectively. On 7.1.1999, the petitioner who was then posted as a Constable in Police Station Khuldabad, was assigned duty in the Geography Department of the Allahabad University while the post graduate entrance examinations were being conducted there. At around 8 am, during an inspection made by the Circle officer, the petitioner was found to be absent and he arrived late and on being questioned about his absence, he is said to have flouted the orders and directions issued to him by the Circle Officer.;