- (1.) The petitioner, being aggrieved with the order dated 17.3.2004 by which the petitioner has been removed from service, has approached this Court. It has been argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has departmentally been proceeded for unauthorised absence from 16.6.2003 to 24.10.2003 i.e. for 131 days and memorandum of charge has been issued. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that during the relevant period the petitioner was seriously ill and due to that reason he could not be able to present himself in the office. The petitioner has tried to satisfy the Enquiry Officer that the absence was not wilful rather due to circumstance beyond his control. Since he was suffering from serious illness like cardiac problem, etc., he has produced medical certificate to that effect before the authority but without considering this aspect of the matter, the charge has been proved by the Enquiry Officer.
(2.) The petitioner has also tried to satisfy the disciplinary authority in the reply submitted before him stating therein that the Enquiry Officer has not considered the fact regarding his illness. The petitioner, thereafter, has filed revision before the Inspector General, North Sector, New Delhi. The petitioner has also tried to satisfy the revisional authority while taking revision before him including medical certificates, but the revisional authority has also not considered all aspects, although the revision order is not under challenge. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a young Constable and the punishment imposed on the petitioner is too harsh which needs reconsideration on the point of quantum of punishment.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner has wilfully absented from duty. The specific statement has been made by the respondents-State in paragraphs-15 and 16 of the counter affidavit, which are as follows:-- "15. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph-7 of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the answering respondent says and submits that not acceptable because as per the medical certificate issued by Dr. Mahesh Kumar, MBBS, MO, New PHC, Chakia, Deoria he was declared fit to resume his duties on 16.9.2003. He should have to report on due date by starting his journey from his home town on 16.9.2003 or 17.9.2003, but he had failed to join his duties on due date and further remained absent from 16.9.2003 to 24.10.2003 (i.e. 39 days) without any reason as well as prior permission approval of competent authority by self willfulness and reported on 25.10.2003 (FN). 16. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph- 8 of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the answering respondent says and submits that not acceptable because as per the medical certificate issued by Dr. Mahesh Kumar, MBBS, MO, New PHC, Chakia, Deoria he was suffering from viral hepatitis 12.6.2003 and was declared fit to resume his duties on 16.9.2003. But he had remained absent from leave w.e.f. 16.9.2003 to 24.10.2003 without any reasons/information as well as prior permission/approval of competent authority and reported on 25.10.2003 (FN) along with medical documents in support of his medical treatment/OSL period w.e.f. 12.6.2003 to 15.9.2003, but the prescription slips, medicine bills, medical tests/investigation reports etc. which was found irregularities/false/wrong. He should have to report in his duties on due date by starting journey from his home town on 16.9.2003 or 17.9.2003, but the delinquent neither joined his duties nor informed his superior officer in this regard and further remained absent wilfully from 16.9.2003 to 24.10.2003 (i.e. 39 days) and reported at his own on 25.10.2003 (FN). At present facility of telephone/internet/telegram/letter available in the every corner of our country and nobody can say that he does not have any one of the above facility to inform his superior officer about his sickness and his intention to extend his leave. In the previous petition/appeal he admitted that he did not inform his superior/department. But now he has stated that the letter written by him could not reach the Ranchi Unit Headquarter. Therefore, it is evident that he is giving contradictory statement and lying.";