- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the penalty order dated 31.08.2004 and the appellate order dated 25.10.2005.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as a constable on compassionate ground. The petitioner was granted leave for two days from 22.4.2003 and he was directed to report on 25.4.2003 however, as he did not report for duty therefore, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The charge memo dated 06.12.03 was served to the petitioner on the allegation that he remained absent unauthorisedly from 25.4.2003 and he was suspended w.e.f. 02.09.2003. An enquiry was conducted and charges against the petitioner were found proved. The disciplinary authority passed the order of removal from service on 31.8.2004. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by order dated 25.10.2005. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating as under: 6. "That, with regard to the statement made in paragraph-3 of the writ petition, it is stated and submitted that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was started on his willful absence from duty and without giving any information of his where about. The proceeding was conducted complying all due process of law for conduction of a proceeding. He was given full opportunity at all level to defend himself, all papers were supplied to him. The final order was passed after giving the petitioner full opportunity to defend himself. 7. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph-4 and 5 of the writ petition it is stated that it requires need no comment. 8. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph-6,7 and 8 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner was absent from duty from 25.4.03 but he never informed about his illness, nor his doctor, nor his family members, nor his native villagers, though it is legally required as mentioned in rule 783(d) of police manual. He received personally all concerned papers during conduction of departmental proceeding and also final show-cause before passing of final order, but he did not informed about his mental or any other illness. Thus when the petitioner was finally dismissed for his willful absence from duty, the medical papers were got prepared afterwords as an excuse. 9. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph-9, 10 and 11 of the writ petition it is stated the contention is denied. The petitioner was on leave for two days from 23.04.03 to 24.04.03. When he did not report on duty on 25.04.03., he was informed through S.P. Buxar to join his duty by letter no.-1080/R.O. dated 07.07.03 and 1504/R.O. dated 29.08.03 and copies of these letters were also sent to his home address by registered post. Two officers S.I. Mudrika Singh of Simri P.S. (District Buxar) and S.I. Jagdish Tiwari of J.A.P.-3, Govindpur personally went to his home and asked him to join duty but the petitioner outright denied to join duty or continue service. 10. That the petitioner was suspended. The charges were framed and departmental proceeding was started against the petitioner. All papers were received by the petitioner but he willfully did not appear before the conducting officer. The conducting officer gave his finding complying all due process of law. Before passing the final order in proceeding, the petitioner was given an opportunity to defend himself. The finding of conducting officer and final show-cause were received personally by the petitioner on 08.08.04. When the petitioner again did not reply in the given period then finally the petitioner was discharged on 31.08.04 by the respondent no.4. Before this dismissal order the petitioner, nor his family never complained about his any illness. The discharge order was received personally by the petitioner but he did not mention the date. 11.That it is further submitted that if the petitioner was not satisfied by the decision of respondent no.-4 in the departmental proceeding, he should have filed an appeal before respondent no.-3 i.e. , D.I.G., J.A.P. Jharkhand Ranchi with in three months. But after about one year of his dismissal the petitioner again made his mind to restart the service of the constable and he filed an appeal before D.I.G. J.A.P. Jharkhand Ranchi and gave an afterthought excuse of mental illness. Since his appeal petition was time-barred. Therefore his appeal was rightly dismissed by the respondent no.-3.";