- (1.) VINEET Saran, J. The petitioner joined the Civil Police as a Constable on 15. 3. 1975. He was placed under suspension by order dated 7. 6. 1988. Thereafter a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner. Then by order dated 13. 9. 1991 passed by the Superintendent of Police, the petitioner was dismissed from service. He thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 2301 of 1993, in which initially an interim order was granted but ultimately the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, respondent No. 3. The same was dismissed on 20. 1. 2000. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed revision before the respondent No. 2, the Inspector General of Police, which was also dismissed on 23. 7. 2000. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 13. 9. 1991, 20. 1. 2000 and 23. 7. 2000, this writ petition has been filed.
(2.) I have heard Sri M. D. Singh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. The charge on which the impugned order has been passed is to the effect that the petitioner had remained absent from duty from 4. 11. 1987 to 20. 11. 1987, 3. 2. 1988 to 1. 3. 1988, 3. 4. 1988 to 19. 9. 1988 and 8. 10. 1988 to 15. 12. 1988 without any sanctioned leave which was for the total period of 251 days and thus the petitioner was also charged for indiscipline and negligence in duty etc. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed ex parte without granting opportunity of filing reply to the charge-sheet or giving opportunity of hearing. It has further been submitted that by the impugned order itself, in the end it has been mentioned that the petitioner shall be treated as on leave without payment of salary for the period of 251 days which would amount to sanctioning his leave, and as such, once the leave had been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner, the action of dismissal from service was not warranted. In the end, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the charges stood proved against the petitioner, the punishment of dismissal from service was totally disproportionate to the charge, and lesser punishment should have been awarded In support thereof, he has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Bhagwan Lalarya v. Commissioner of Police, 2004 (4) E. S. C. 520 (SC); (ii) Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, JT 1996 (2) SC 648; and (iii) Syed Zaheer Hussain v. Union of India, 1999 (81) FLR 704.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the conduct of the petitioner has throughout been very irresponsible, inasmuch as not once or twice but he has been on unsanctioned leave for several weeks, on several occasions, and thus the punishment awarded is fully justified. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, no interference is called for with the orders impugned in this writ petition. The petitioner is a member of disciplined force. His conduct of going on leave and remaining absent without sanctioned leave could have been condoned if it was on one occasion or so, but not in a case where he has consistently done so at least on four occasions. The explanation that he remained absent because of his wife's illness is not worthy of acceptance inasmuch as he has not stated anywhere that while he remained absent, he had sent any application along with the medical certificate of his wife for remaining on such leave or after returning on duty, he had ever filed any such application explaining the cause for his absence. As regards the question of ex parte hearing, the same is also not correct. The petitioner was in jail in a case under Section 302 and also in another case under Section 307 when the charge-sheet was served on him. It is not denied that such charge-sheet had been served on him in jail. He was granted bail on 1. 3. 1990 and remained out of jail till 23. 7. 1990. He was given several opportunities to submit his reply. In the impugned order itself it has been mentioned that such opportunities had been given to him on 10. 3. 1990 and 14. 6. 1990, which were such dates when he was not in jail. As such, if a person chooses not to give reply to the charge-sheet and also chooses not to participate in the enquiry proceedings, it cannot be said that the order has been passed against him ex parte.;