ASHOK KUMAR DUBEY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 16.9.2003 by which the petitioner has been removed from service as well as the order dated 6.1.2004 passed by respondent No. 3 thereby rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable vide order dated 29.7.1988. Thereafter, the petitioner became mentally sick and proceeded to his home and was treated at Rewa Medical College by Assistant Professor, Department of Medicines from 5.12.2002. It has further been stated that as the petitioner was mentally sick, he could not submit any application for leave or any information about his illness. In the meanwhile, a charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 4 levelling the charges of unauthorisedly absent and indiscipline and as the petitioner was mentally sick the petitioner cannot remain present in the enquiry, it was conducted ex-parte. Thereafter, a notice was issued to him for submitting a representation against the enquiry report. The petitioner could not submit the representation and ultimately he was served with order dated 16.9.2003 whereby, the punishment of removal from service has been inflicted on him, Thereafter, the wife of the petitioner has submitted a representation before the authorities informing that the petitioner is mentally sick and, therefore, not able to attain the duties. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted his joining report and appear to join the duties along with medical certificate, but he was not allowed to do so. He, therefore submitted an appeal on 22.10.2003 along with all necessary documents and medical certificate. However, the said appeal was rejected vide order dated 6.1.2004. Being aggrieved by that orders, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the entire enquiry conducted against the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. He argues that the petitioner was mentally sick and, therefore, he could not attained the duties as well as the enquiry initiated against him. The enquiry was proceeded ex-parte against him. He further submits that the petitioner has submitted an appeal along with all medical certificates, but the appellate authority has failed to consider the documents submitted by the petitioner. He further submits that the punishment for removal of service on the ground of unauthorised absence is a disproportionate punishment and for the said purpose he relied on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India and another, 2012 (132) FLR 1023 (SC), Bhagwan Lal Arya v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and another, 2004 (101) FLR 193 (SC). and Arvind Dixit v. Director General of Police, M.P and others, 2002 (3) MPLJ 258 = 2002 (94) FLR 6 (M.P.) (Sum.).