- (1.) Heard Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mahendra Nath Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 16.12.2009 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from services as well as the order dated 1.5.2010 by which the appellate authority has rejected the petitioner's appeal filed against the order of punishment. The impugned orders are contained in Annexure-1 and 2 to the writ petition. The facts stated in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable in Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) and at the relevant point of time, he was posted in U.P. Civil Police. The petitioner while being posted in civil police was proceeded against with the issuance of a charge sheet on 3.7.2009 wherein two charges were specifically levelled. The first charge against the petitioner was to the effect that on 10.6.2008 while being deputed on duty between 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. at Crossroad, Kaiserbagh towards Gymkhana, on being contacted on Radio Transmission Set by the then Incharge, namely, Digvijay Singh, he was suspected to have consumed liquor. The Incharge immediately messaged the police station to call the petitioner back. The petitioner after reaching the police station apprehended of being subjected to medical test, it is alleged, therefore, he fled away from the police station. The second charge levelled against the petitioner is with respect to his unauthorised absence on the respective dates mentioned in the charge sheet. The petitioner after receipt of the charge sheet filed his reply wherein both the charges were specifically denied. The petitioner denied to have consumed liquor during duty hours and the charge of unauthorised absence was also replied by the petitioner by explaining his ailment on the respective dates due to head injury. The charge sheet, for the purposes of establishing the alleged charges against the petitioner, relied upon the oral evidence of Thana Incharge, namely, Digvijay Singh and one Constable Nirankar Swaroop Misra who were posted at the police station. That apart, one Sri Shalabh Mathur, who had submitted preliminary enquiry report was also mentioned as a witness in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner. An enquiry officer was appointed who is said to have held the enquiry and submitted the enquiry report on 22.8.09. The enquiry officer appears to have held the oral enquiry between 30.7.09 to 7.8.09. The statements of Shalabh Mathur who had drawn the preliminary enquiry report and Digvijay Singh, Station Incharge, were recorded on 30.7.09 when the petitioner did not participate for any cross-examination, whereas, on 1.8.09 when the statement of third witness Nirankar Swaroop Misra was recorded, the petitioner appears to have participated in the enquiry and cross-examined the third witness. The statement of three witnesses and cross-examination of one witness was the sole material available before the enquiry officer for appreciating the charges so far as the findings recorded in the enquiry report contrary to the stand taken by the petitioner in his reply are concerned.
(3.) It is relevant to note that there was no medical report either relied upon or attempted to have been drawn by the disciplinary authority at the relevant point of time. The medical examination of the petitioner was evaded simply on the ground of petitioner's disappearance from the police station when he was called back from duty on 10.6.08 at about 23:30 p.m. Interestingly, two show cause notices were issued to the petitioner on the basis of alleged charges and enquiry report submitted on 22.8.09. The show cause notice issued on 7.9.09 proposed a punishment of dismissal from service on the basis of both the charges, whereas the show cause notice dated 8.9.09 was exclusively based on the second charge of unauthorised absence and this charge, at that point of time, had also been enquired by the enquiry officer on the basis of charge sheet dated 3.7.09. The petitioner, however, failed to submit his reply to any of the two show cause notices. Consequently, the petitioner, by an order dated 16.12.09 was dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority on the basis of aforementioned enquiry report and simultaneously by another order issued on the same very date, his salary for the period of unauthorised absence was forfeited.;