- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Feeling aggrieved by and an o der removing him from service passed by the Superintendent of Police, respondent No. 5 which was affirmed iu appeal with the dismissal thereof vide the order, dated 24-11- 1994 passed by the Inspector General of Police, respondent No. 1, the petitioner has now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the aforesaid orders.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel representing the respondents. It appears that while the petitioner was posted as Assistant Inspector (Civil Police) at Police Station Baraut, district Meerut, he was sent to obtain an X-ray report in. connection with Criminal Case No. 547- A/1992, under Sec tions 323/324, IPC from P. L. Sharma Hospital, Meerut on 11-9-1992 but he did not return to report for duty till 20-1-1993 after having remained absent for a period of 132 days. In the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, his explanation that he had fallen ill and was suffering from jaundice which prevented him from reporting to duty was not accepted for want of compliance of the requirements contemplated under the Regulations, and it was found that the petitioner had remained absent in an unauthorised manner without sanction of any leave. The disciplinary authority being of the view that the petitioner who was a member of disciplined force had remain ed absent in an unauthorised manner which constituted a grave misconduct awarded the punishment of removal from service en him. The appellate authority endorsing the finding of the disciplinary authority observed that the unauthorrised absence of the petitioner indicated negligence in the performance of duties which could not justify his retention in service. The appellate autho rity also found that the disciplinary proceedings were not vitiated on account of any procedural error. The order imposing the penalty of removal from service passed by the disciplinary authority was, therefore, affirmed. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents it has been stated that since the petitioner had remained absent from duty against the service conduct rules he had been removed from the service. It has also been asserted that the quantum of punishment is not disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to assail the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority negativing the defence Bet up by the petitioner. I have carefully perused the enquiry report as well as the orders by the disciplinary authority as well as the appel late authority. THE concurrent findings rejecting the defence of the petitioner are based on an appraisal of evidence and materials on the record which findings do not appear to suffer from any such legal infirmity which may justify any interference by this Court therein while exercising the extraordinary juris diction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, strenuously urged that the punishment awarded to the petitioner for his unauthorised absence for a period of 132 days in the circumstances of the case is grossly dispro portionate to the gravity of the misconduct. The petitioner's service, is, governed by the provisions contained in the Police Act 1861 and the provisions contained in the police regulations framed thereunder as applicable in the State of U. P. as well as the provisions contained in D. P. Subordinate Police Officers (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.;