R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against order of dismissal of petitioner, a Head Constable in Industrial Security Force, for having proceeded on leave in anticipation of it being sanctioned. The questions are two fold one if the order suffers from any error of law. Second, even if the findings of Inquiry Officer are correct is the punishment of removal from service of a person who had put in sixteen years with unblemished service commensurate with guilt.
(2.) From evidence led by both parties the Inquiry Officer found that the petitioner went to P.T.P.L. hospital Panki on 14th August, 1985 where he was given medicine and referred to hospital at Mariumpur. But according to petitioner he could not reach there due to lack of facility. He, however, got himself examined by a private doctor who recommended rest for one month. The certificate issued by the doctor was endorsed by the doctor at Panki as well. Thereafter he contacted the duty officer in control room on 16th August, 1985 and .informed him that he has been granted leave for one month and he was going home. The officer, however, told him to obtain leave from Assistant Commandant. But petitioner went away. The Inquiry. Officer on these facts was of opinion that the petitioner who was a responsible officer and had but in sixteen years of service should not have proceeded on leave on its own without obtaining leave from proper authority merely on recommendation of the doctor. Therefore, he was guilty of misconduct and the charge of leaving the unit without leave was established. The disciplinary authority accepted the recommendation and held that desertion of duty without prior sanction of leave was a serious charge in a discipline force, therefore, he was liable to be removed from service.
(3.) Various infirmities have been attempted to be pointed out in the impugned order. For instance, it was urged that suspension order was passed without notice, Inquiry Officer was biased, principles of natural justice were not observed during inquiry, no notice was given before imposing the punishment. One of the submissions have any merit. Neither the allegation of bias against Inquiry Officer nor any procedural irregularity during inquiry could be established. Nor the order is vitiated either because no notice was given prior to suspension or before the order was passed by disciplinary authority.;