- (1.) The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 5.9.2008 and 2.2.2009 passed by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority respectively, has preferred this instant writ petition. The brief facts argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is as follows:
(2.) The petitioner after being appointed as constable in the Armed Police Force in the year, 2003 had started discharging his duty while he was posted in the district of Latehar. He was granted leave for the period of four days i.e. from 26.9.2007 to 30.9.2007 but due to the reason beyond his control, he could not be able to appear in the office after completion of the said sanctioned leave. He was suggested to report from 1.10.2007, but he could not be able to do so, as such a memo of charge was served upon him, alleging therein that he has absented himself from office for a period of 154 days, without any permission from the competent authority. In the said memo of charge, earlier unauthorized absence of the petitioner has also been mentioned. The petitioner, thereafter, was served notice to appear before the inquiry officer but he could not appear and in his absence, the inquiry officer has submitted his report, after accepting the findings of the inquiry officer, the petitioner has been dismissed from service vide order dated 5.9.2008. Petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ranchi, who without considering the reason assigned by the petitioner in memo of appeal affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The argument on behalf of learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner proceeded on sanctioned leave for the period of four days but due to illness of his wife and ultimately he also met with an accident resulting in fracture of his leg, he could not be able to present himself in office after expiry of his sanctioned leave due to the reason beyond his control.
(3.) Further it has been argued that the proceeding has been concluded ex parte and the petitioner has not been given opportunity of being heard. Even in appeal, all points raised by the petitioner have not been considered by the appellate authority. He has further argued that before reaching to the conclusion, it was the duty of the disciplinary authority to exercise power conferred under Rule 843 of Jharkhand Police Manual and as such he has argued that the order of dismissal is not in accordance with law.;