KRISHNA MURARI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) PLEADINGS have been exchanged between the parties. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being finally disposed of at this stage. The facts are that the petitioner, who was working as a Constable in the U.P. Police Force, was dismissed from service vide order dated 18th June, 2005 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar, respondent no. 3 without holding any enquiry by invoking the power conferred under proviso to Rule 8 (2) (b) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short the Rules). The petitioner went up in appeal. The appellate authority vide order dated 20th of August, 2005 allowed the appeal in part and set aside the order dated 18th of June, 2005 dismissing the petitioner from service on the ground that the order was passed without recording any reason as to why it was not practicable to hold the enquiry and directed the Senior Superintendent of Police to conduct disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and thereafter pass suitable orders. However, it was further directed that the petitioner will not be entitled to get any salary for the period he has remained out of service, however, the said period shall be counted for other benefits. It appears that respondent no. 3, Senior Superintendent of Police again invoking the powers of Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Rules passed the order of dismissal dated 02.12.2005 without recording any reason. A perusal of the order dated 02.12.2005 as well as earlier order dated 18th June, 2005 goes to show that they are in verbatim, copy of each other. The petitioner again went up in appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 22nd March, 2006. Revision filed by the petitioner also came to be dismissed vide order dated 28th September, 2006. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(3.) A perusal of the impugned orders goes to show that petitioner was dismissed from service on the basis of some report submitted by Superintendent of Police (Traffic) that the petitioner went on 5 days' leave on 01.01.2005, but remained absent unauthorizedly and he is habitual of absenting himself from duty and in past also on various occasions, he absented himself without any leave application.;