- (1.) The petitioner has challenged order of penalty dated 25.9.2000, appellate order dated 8.1.2001, whereby his appeal against the order of punishment dated 25.9.2000 was rejected and revisions order dated 25.7.2001. The petitioner has been awarded punishment of lowering down his scale to the lowest scale of Rs. 3,050/- for 5 years and it has also been ordered that he would not get any increment during the above period and the period of suspension between 08.10.1999 to 4.1.2000 shall not be counted on duty and he would get only the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. The petitioner was appointed as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force. During 1999 Parliamentary elections, he was deployed at Shatabdi Bhawan Strong Room, A.N. College, Patna. On 7.10.1999 he completed his duty from 5.00 hrs. to 9.00 hrs. and on rotation he had to join his duty between 17.00 hrs to 21.00 hrs. on the same day. It is the case of the petitioner that at about 15.00 hrs. he experienced severe stomach pain and loose motion and therefore, after Informing his Guard Commander, namely K.D. Tiwari and after entrusting his arms, ammunitions and other articles, he rushed to the doctor for the treatment. On the way he further suffered vomiting and thereafter, he got himself examined in the clinic of Dr. B.N. Mishra, who was employed in Patna University. He remained under the treatment of Dr. B.N. Mishra till morning hours of 8.10.1999 and thereafter he immediately came to the Shatabdi Bhawan where he found that the Company was already withdrawn from the deployment and therefore, he proceeded for Dhanbad. He received his arms and ammunitions and produced the medical certificate of Dr. B.N. Mishra. The petitioner was put under suspension on 8.10.1999 and he was served a charge-memo dated 9.11.1999 for his absence from duty on 7.10.1999 from 17.00 hrs. to 21.00 hrs. During the enquiry the petitioner submitted his show-cause reply contending that he has not committed any misconduct or dereliction of duty. The Guard Commander, namely K.D. Tiwari, who was examined as prosecution witness also supported the plea of the petitioner that after informing him about his illness and depositing his arms and ammunitions, the petitioner had left for medical treatment. The evidence of Shri K.D. Tiwari is corroborated by the prosecution witness Shri C.M. Jha also. The enquiry officer submitted his report dated 12.6.2000 holding the charge against the petitioner proved. In response to the show-cause notice dated 30.6.2000, the petitioner submitted his reply reiterating his stand that due to illness he had to rush to a doctor and before leaving for medical treatment the petitioner had duly communicated and deposited his arms and ammunitions to Shri K.D. Tiwari. The disciplinary authority passed the order of penalty as noticed above. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.I.S.F., however, the appeal was dismissed by order dated 8.1.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Inspector General, C.I.S.F., which was also rejected by order dated 25.7.2001 holding that the petition was devoid of merit. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed in which the respondents have taken a stand that in a disciplined force, unauthorised absence from duty is viewed very seriously. The charge against the petitioner was grave and he has been found guilty in the departmental enquiry. The petitioner was afforded full opportunity during the departmental enquiry and the order of punishment has been passed on due consideration of the materials on record and therefore, no interference is called for in the present case.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during departmental enquiry the explanation offered by the petitioner has been rejected on frivolous ground. The evidence of Shri K.D. Tiwari has been ignored by the enquiry officer on the ground that he had not informed the Coy Commander. He further submitted that order of penalty suffers from non-application of mind and it has been passed in a mechanical manner ignoring the materials on record. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, while supporting the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority, has submitted that orders passed against the petitioner are just and proper.;