MADAN, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of an order of removal of the petitioner from service duly upheld by the appellate Authority (respondents) in disciplinary inquiry initiated for the charges as to the absence from head quarter station at Shamgarh (Kota) and overstay permitted ten days during the period of suspension.
(2.) IN nut shell, the facts relevant for the present controversy are thus:- After completion of initial training course from 15. 12. 86 to 14. 7. 87 and further practical training from 15. 7. 87 to 14. 8. 87, the petitioner was appointed as Constable and then confirmed as such. However, he was placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary inquiry by suspension order dated 15. 1. 90 (Annex. 1), whereby he was directed to report his attendance daily at Kota (W) but with a specific condition that he is not permitted to leave his headquarter during suspension without permission of the competent authority since otherwise he will be liable to the taken up for necessary disciplinary actin under RPF Rules. By subsequent order dated 19. 3. 90 the Divisional Security Commissioner (RPF) Kota (respondent No. 3) shifted headquarter of the petitioner from Kota to Shyamgarh with immediate effect, whereby it was also specified that during suspension the petitioner would be subject to responsibilities of the members of the Force u/rule 143 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (for short, "rpf" ). Admittedly pursuant to order dated 19. 3. 90 he petitioner reported for attendance at Shyamgarh (100 kms. away from Kota) on 23. 3. 90. It is the case of the petitioner that he was asked by Shri L. R. Jatav, Post Commander RPF Post Shyamgarh, to record his presence twice every day once at 10 AM and secondly, at 6 PM, inasmuch as he was further directed to come to the office like a regular employee as if not under suspension. His further case is that since he raised finger against the attitude of Shri Jatav by way of his written representation dt. 17. 4. 90 (Annex. 2), Shri Jatav got furious resulting into making him s absent in the muster roll on 17. 4. 90, besides further showing absent on the three more days from 27. 4. 90 to 29. 4. 90. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was granted permission to leave head quarter for ten days on the ground of his wife being critically ill, and therefore, he left Shyamgarh post in the afternoon of 22. 5. 90 and continued to remain absent by sending no application for leave but transmitting only sickness certificate of his wife one after the other, though it is the allegation of the petitioner that he did not requests for leave extension or permission thereof by registered posts (Annex. 3), but he reported back on 23. 9. 90. Ultimately, a memo dt. 22/27-09/1990 alongwith charge-sheet and statement of allegation u/rule 53 of he RPF rules, was served on the petitioner, as per which, despite written orders the petitioner remained absent at the head quarter on 17. 4. 90, from 27. 4. 90 to 29. 4. 90 and from 2. 6. 90 to 22. 9. 90. One, M. M. Parashar, an office of the rank of Inspector was appointed as inquiry officer but the petitioner applied for change of this inquiry officer by his letter dt. 18. 10. 90 but his request was turned down on 24. 10. 90. It is also the case of the petitioner that he was not afforded sufficient opportunity to appoint his defence nominee which was necessary under the rules because of he being an illiterate person, and as he was not familiar with the niceties of procedure pertaining to disciplinary inquiry, in as much as the only witness examined by the department was Shri L. R. Jatav, who bore animosity and bias against him and to whom only one question was put as to whether letters (Annex. 5 to 13) were issued under his signatures or not. In defence the petitioner did also submit his final statement (Annex. 15) on 12. 11. 90. However, the Inquiry Officer produced his report (Annex. 16) on 29. 12. 90 holding that the charges imputed against the petitioner were proved.
(3.) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that a number of documents including notice allegedly issued by the respondent No. 3 were taken on record and considered by the inquiry officer but curiously enough they were not at all tendered in evidence even without referring it either in the list of documents or in the statements of the allegation attached to the charge sheet or even in the statement of Shri L. R. Jatav (only departmental witness ). The respondent No. 3 on the basis of inquiry report (Ann. 16) passed an order (Ann. 17) on 22. 1. 1991 holding the petitioner guilty of the imputed charges and awarded punishment of his removal from service, against which an appeal (Ann. 19) was preferred by the petitioner on 9. 2. 1991 to the respondent No. 2 who dismissed the same by order dt. 18. 10. 1991 (Ann. 20 ). Hence, this writ petition. It is trite that para-meter as to the scope and permissible grounds of judicial review in any of matters either contractual or employment under statutory rules, and the relief available, are different but that does not justify the review of total exclusion of Article 14 when the modern trend is also to examine the unreasonableness of approach adopted against the delinquent by the inquiry or disciplinary authority, if so alleged. Where there is arbitrariness in State action, the principles enshrined under Art. 14 would immediately spring in and in exercise of judicial review, such impugned action of a State functionary can be struck down because of the settled principle that every action of the executive authority must be subject to rule of law and must be informed by reason so as to exclude any remote possibility of biased or unreasonable approach and, therefore, whatever be the activity of the public authority it should meet the tests as stipulated under Article 14. ;