Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of his removal from service dated 20th December, 2001 and rejection of his appeal by order dated 14th March, 2005 with the prayer to declare both these orders illegal and quash and set aside both of them and direct the respondents to reinstate him back in service along with all consequential service benefits from the date of his removal.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as Constable in Rajasthan Police at Police Line, Jaipur vide order dated 23.9.1989. He was awarded a certificate of good performance and admiration by the Director General of Police in the ceremony of Rajasthan Police Day on 17.4.1992 and another certificate of good performance for discharging duties by Presiding Officer during Lok Sabha Election on 11.9.1999. While the petitioner was discharging duties in the Government employment, his house got burnt in fire in 1996 at Village Pragpura Tehsil Kotputali, Distt. Jaipur. Resultantly, the petitioner received a great shock and went into depression. He became a psychological patient and mentally sick and with the passage of time, he lost his mental balance. When the petitioner was posted at Police Line, Jaipur City in the year 2000, he could not present himself in the roll call at 8.00 p.m. on 5th April, 2000 for the reason that all of a sudden his mental disorder and depression became severe. He was not in a position to join his services. Due to this, he also could not inform about this to his superiors. In support of his claim, the petitioner has placed on record medical treatment prescriptions and certificates, which show that for the period beginning from 1999 till 2002, he remained under treatment for the mental disease. The first prescription which is on record is by Dr. K.G. Thanvi, Neuro Physician dated 21st December, 1999 and thereafter by Dr. Alok Tyagi. These documents show that the petitioner remained under continuous treatment of the Doctors at Mental Hospital, Jaipur and diagnosed to be a case of acute psychosis and severe depression. Mr. Sunil Kumar Yaday, learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court in particular to the prescription of petitioner's treatment issued by the Senior Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Reserve Police Line, Jaipur dated 19th March, 2001 which is on record as Annexure 7 and dated 15.12.2001 which is also on record as Annexure 10. These prescriptions indicate that the petitioner was referred to mental hospital by Senior Doctor of Reserve Police Lines, Jaipur with Constable No. 2856, Bhag Singh. A report to this effect was entered in Rojnamcha Report No. 59 dated 19.3.2001. Second prescription show that this time again he was referred with the opinion of Senior Medical Officer, Govt. Hospital, Reserve Police Line, Jaipur City to Mental Hospital and again he was sent with the Constable No. 2856 Bhag Singh and was hospitalized. This was entered at Rojnamcha Report No. 89 dated 15.12.2001. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner around this time was not in a position to decide. As to what was in his best interest or otherwise and in that state of mind, a charge sheet dated 14th January, 2001 for wilful absence of 314 days was issued to him and ex parte proceedings were conducted against him. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 7th August, 2001 indicating that notice of the inquiry was served upon the petitioner, on 20th May, 2001 and thereafter on 21st April, 2001 and thereafter on 17th July, 2001 but the petitioner did not appear. Thus, the charges were held to be proved against the petitioner in an ex parte proceedings and eventually the Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 20th December, 2001 removing the petitioner from services. In the course of time, when the petitioner gained health and came out of the disease, he filed appeal before the Appellate Authority on 17th December, 2004, which however was dismissed being barred by limitation vide order dated 14th March, 2005.
(3.) MR . Sunil Yadav, learned Counsel argued that the kind of mental disease with which the petitioner was suffering, he in that situation was not even able to decide when and where he was to attend his duties and therefore, even if the notice of enquiry was served, the petitioner was not conscious about what was the implication of his non -appearance in that enquiry proceedings. This fact was fully known to the respondents because he had the mental ailment active even while he was posted in Police Lines, and their own Senior Medical Officer of the Government Hospital in the Police Line sent the petitioner twice to the Mental Hospital with the same Constable which fact was duly entered in the Rojnamcha. The petitioner remained hospitalized on various occasions during all this time and notice was served upon him when he was in that state of mind. In view of his health this notice was without any meaning. The learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner raised all these grounds in the appeal but the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal without going into merits observing that the appeal was time barred. It was bounden duty of the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer, who cannot be said to be completely unaware of the mental health of the petitioner to at least provide him defence assistant who could represent his case before the authorities and appraise them of the true facts.;