- (1.) Petitioner (ex-Constable) was charge-sheeted on 16.9.2001 on three counts:-- (I) Petitioner remained absent without any leave or information for 2726 days from 21.12.92 to 19.5.2000. (II) Petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly for 16 days from 29.9.2000 to 14.10.2000. (III) Petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly for 42 days from 3.1.2001 to 14.2.2001. An enquiry was conducted in accordance with law. Sufficient opportunities were provided to the petitioner. Having heard the petitioner and having considered all the material available before the Enquiry Officer, Enquiry Officer has found that unauthorized absence of the petitioner on three different occasions, as mentioned in the charge-sheet, stand proved. Having considered the petitioner's reply and the findings of the Enquiry Officer, Superintendent of Police has passed impugned order dated 7.8.2002, dismissing the petitioner from the service. However, it is important to mention here that learned Superintendent of Police, in the impugned dismissal order, has also highlighted unauthorized absence of the petitioner on the previous occasions also.
(2.) Statutory Appeal and Revision were also dismissed by the authorities.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as per Rule 826 of the Jharkhand Police Manual, previous record of service which has not been included in the charge of the proceeding should not be taken into account while imposing the major punishment of dismissal. He has further argued that learned Superintendent of Police has mentioned, in his impugned order of dismissal, previous unauthorized absence of the petitioner, which is in violation of Rule 826 of the Jharkhand Police Manual. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, because of past service record, Superintendent of Police has made up his mind to pass the dismissal order.;