VYAS, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the validity of impugned order dated 21/7/1993 (Annex. 1), whereby, petitioner was dismissed from service for misconduct alleged to be committed by him to remain absent from duty without sanctioned leave so also petitioner is further challenging the order passed by Appellate Authority dated 25/8/1993 (Annex. 3) and order Annex. 4 dated 10/4/1995 passed by the Reviewing Authority.
(2.) ACCORDING to facts of the case, petitioner was substantively appointed on the post of constable in the month of August, 1979. He was charge sheeted vide charge sheet dated 8/4/1993 in which two charges were levelled against him. which read as follows: G fd fnukad 8-11-92 le; 7 ih,e ij estj Goynkj vkj-ih-,q- ckalokmk }kjk ykbzu ds Gkftj eqyktekuksa dk jksydksy eqrkfcd Gktjh jftlvj ds fy;k x;k rks vki jksy dksy esa Gkftj uGha Gksuk ik;k tkus ij jks- vke jiv la[;k 433 ij vkidks xsj Gkftjh vafdr dh xbz] vki fn0 12-1-93 dks bl dk;kzy; ls vken dk vkns'k izkir dj iqu% iq-yk- ckalokmk ij jks-vke jiv la[;k 625 le; 8 ih,e ntz djokbza 2 ;G fd vkidks M;wvh iq-yk- ckalokmk ls chekj eqyfte dh fuxjkuh esa eGkrek xka/kh vlirky ckalokmk ij yxkbz xbz Fkh] fnukad 14-1-93 dks Jh esGcqc [kka dkfu-ua- 475 us vlirky ls Vsyhqksu iq-yk- ckalokmk esa crk;k fd Jh rsu flaG dkfu ua- 321 M~;wvh ij uGha Gs ftl ij vkjvkbz iq- ykbzu ckalokmk }kjk jks vke jiv la[;k 720 le; 5. 30 ih,e ij vkdh xsj Gk- vafdr dh xbz] vki fnukad 11-2-93 dks bl dk;kzy; ls vken dk vkns'k izkir dj vkjih,q ls ih,e ij vken ntz djokbza** In reply to above charge sheet, petitioner denied the charges levelled against him and submitted that his wife was seriously ill in village and there is no hospital nearby village and his children are minor upon above reason a request was made to R. I. under whom he was working but his prayer for leave was rejected, therefore, due to serious illness of wife he was not in position to attend the duty. This reply was not considered and after conducting inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1968 the services of petitioner were terminated vide order dated 23. 7. 1993. While inflicting such penalty the respondents have sanctioned 71 days earned leave and 23 days half pay leave to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, on one hand his reply was not properly considered for the purpose of termination but on other hand by passing the order of sanctioning privileged leave for 71 days and 23 days half pay leave while accepting reasons for absence stated in reply to the charge sheet, respondents themselves have regularized the services of petitioner, therefore, it is not a case of committing any misconduct, more so it is a case in which the explanation of petitioner with regard to his absence was accepted by the respondents themselves, therefore, leave for the period of alleged absence was sanctioned to the petitioner. The order of punishment was further challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority but his appeal rejected and review application was also rejected by the Reviewing Authority.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that although the ground of jurisdiction is not taken in writ petition but while citing the judgment of Jaipur Bench reported in 2007 WLC 484 (Ram Karan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), it is argued that order of punishment has been passed by Superintendent of Police, whereas, as per the judgment of this Court Superintendent of Police is not the disciplinary authority for the post of enumerated in subordinate services and petitioner is working on the post of Constable, therefore, order has been passed by the authority having no jurisdiction. Without prejudice to above argument, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned is totally non-speaking order so also the inquiry which is conducted for alleged misconduct is also erroneous because no evidence whatsoever has been taken by the inquiry officer and only on the basis of presumption and allegation levelled by the department, he has been penalized by the Superintendent of Police. Further, it is argued that from the perusal of punishment order it is abundantly clear that no reason whatsoever has been assigned nor any evidence has been discussed for the purpose of arriving at the finding of guilt against the petitioner. Learned counsel further argued that once the period of absence is regularized by the respondents it has resulted in acceptance of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, therefore, petitioner was to be exonerated but on the one hand period of absence was regularized and by way of sanctioning P. L. For 71 days and HPL for 23 days and on the other hand for the allegation of absence from duty for the same period he has been penalized with penalty of termination which is totally erroneous, illegal and unconstitutional. ;