- (1.) UNDER a memorandum dated 22.3.2000 the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, Constable No.636, and sought explanation from him for remaining wilfuly absent from duties from 06.8.1999 till the date of issuance of the memorandum. No explanation in response thereto was given, thus, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and a regular enquiry commenced. The petitioner did not choose to participate in the enquiry too. The Enquiry Officer during the course of enquiry recorded statements of Shri Laxmi Narayan (PW-1) Head Constable No.328, Police Line, Bhilwara; Shri Santok Singh (PW-2), Shri Ganpat Lal (PW-3), Constable No.995, P.S. Khinvsar; Shri Chunna Ram (PW-4) and Shri Mukesh Choudhary (PW-5), SHO, P.S. Khinvsar and relying upon the testimony of the witnesses named above and other documents produced, the Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty for remaining absent from duties voluntarily.
(2.) AFTER completion of enquiry a notice as per Rule 86 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 was also served upon the petitioner but that was also not responded. The Disciplinary Authority then served a copy of enquiry report upon the petitioner and provided him an opportunity to submit comments thereon. However, no comments were submitted, thus, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 02.2.2001 imposing a penalty of dismissal from service. The appeal giving challenge to order dated 02.2.2001 also came to be rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ajmer Range, Ajmer vide order dated 23.7.2001. A review petition then preferred also came to be rejected by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Home Affairs vide order dated 20.5.2004. To challenge the orders aforesaid this petition for writ was presented on 01.2.2013, but no adequate reason is given to explain the delay of seven years in filing petition for writ after dismissal of review petition. Be that as it may, I have examined the case of petitioner on merits too. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary action under the memorandum dated 22.3.2000. He did not choose to submit his explanation as required. He also not participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer after conducting necessary enquiry arrived at a definite conclusion about the guilt of the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority being in agreement with the conclusion so arrived passed the order of punishment. The Appellate Authority also considered all the relevant facts and affirmed the finding given by the Disciplinary Authority. As a matter of fact, learned counsel for the petitioner did not question correctness of the proceedings as per the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rajsthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The only argument advanced is that the penalty of dismissal is excessive than the dilequency established.
(3.) THE argument advanced lack merit in view of the fact that a member of disciplined force, if remain absent from duties voluntarily without any reason, then such a conduct is quite serious. Such conduct deserves to be dealt with stringently and the penalty of dismissal from service for such a long absence can not be termed as disproportionate. No interference of this Court, therefore, is warranted while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ is dismissed accordingly.;