Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) Proceedings under the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks Punishment and Appeal Rules 1991 were initiated against the petitioner for being absent from his duties w.e.f. 3.1.1995 to 25.3.1995 i.e. 81 days. The petitioner was a constable posted at Police Lines Allahabad. It is alleged by the petitioner that he was not given any opportunity of participating in the enquiry consequently the order dated 12.3.1996 of removal passed by the disciplinary authority and that the order dated 28.2.1997 passed by the appellate authority as also the order dated 25.5.2002 /10.6.2002 of the revisional authority was illegal. It is the case of the petitioner that he had completed fourteen years satisfactory service but due to illness he could not perform his duties as constable during the aforesaid period of 81 days. It has been stated by the petitioner that he was intimated about the order dated 12.3.1996 passed by the respondent No. 3. Consequently he filed an appeal dated 10.6.1996 before the respondent No. 2. He has further stated that he could not send his leave application through registered post on account of financial problem. The said appeal was rejected by the respondent No. 2 where after the petitioner preferred a revision before the responded No. 1. It is stated by the petitioner that the authorities concerned had failed to appreciate that in fact no enquiry what so ever has been conducted and the entire disciplinary proceedings were virtually ex-parte. It has been stated that he had given valid explanation for his absence and therefore, it was incumbent and obligatory on the part of the authorities to have objectively considered the grievance of the petitioner and the explanation submitted by him. He submits that the authorities have not considered the case of the petitioner in its right perspective and to the contrary a very narrow view has been taken which is erroneous on the lace of it and is against the rule of fair play as such being violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has further averred that statement of fact that he did not participate in the enquiry was vague and evasive and the entire proceedings were conducted without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. Further that the punishment of dismissal is too severe and is not commensurate to the charge which has been leveled against him.
(2.) Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated in the counter affidavit that from 3.1.1995 the petitioner absented from duty which fact was recorded in the general diary and his return on 25.3.1995 was also recorded. It is stated that proceedings under Rule 14 (1) of the Rules of 1991 were initiated against the petitioner and he was given full opportunity to participate in the enquiry. However, since the petitioner did not participate, therefore, enquiry report dated 19.2.1996 was submitted. The respondent No. 3 issued show cause notice dated 20 2.1996 to the petitioner which was sent by a special messenger and due to absence of the petitioner at his residence it was served by affixation. Thereafter no response was received from the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 passed an order dated 12.3.1996 removing him from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal and upon dismissal of his appeal, he preferred revision which was also dismissed. It is stated that the petitioner had filed civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7518 of 2002 and in compliance of the order of this court the petitioner was given opportunity by the respondent No. 1. It has been stated that the petitioner has alternative remedy before the State Services Tribunal. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner has not given any intimation with respect to his absence from duty on the ground of illness and as such he has not complied with the provisions of Regulation 381 and 382 of the U.P. Police Regulations. It is further case of the respondents that service record of the petitioner reveals that on previous occasions, the petitioner has absented himself from duty unauthorizedly and lenient view was taken but the petitioner has not improved upon his ways.
(3.) In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has stated that entire proceedings have been conducted without providing any opportunity of hearing and in violation of principles of natural justice therefore the petitioner cannot be relegated on the ground of alternative remedy. He has further re-iterated that his absence was due to illness and in future he will try not to be absent from duty.;