- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner, who is a constable in the Crime Branch of the Police Department of the respondent-State was proceeded against under the charge-sheet at Annexure-4 on 28th August, 2012 alleging unauthorized absence from 12th May, 2012 to 23rd May, 2012 which was reported by the in-charge C.I.D. team on 16th May, 2012. The petitioner admittedly participated in the enquiry, furnished his written statement and also produced evidence in his support in the nature of C.D.R i.e., Phone call records, certain witnesses who were constables in the same department residing in the same barrack and also evidence of his illness and treatment through registered Homeopathic doctor of the locality. Petitioner was also given chance to submit his final written defence before the inquiry officer submitted his report. However, the petitioner after submission of the enquiry report has been imposed with the punishment vide order dated 15th January, 2013 by the Superintendent of Police Crime Branch C.I.D, Jharkhand, Ranchi (Annexure-8) by withholding of increment for six months which is equivalent to one black mark and it will not affect his future increment. Petitioner's appeal has also been rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 14th August, 2013 passed by the D.I.G. Police which has also been allowed by way of interlocutory application to be challenged. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has also been given promotion to the rank of A.S.I. on 28th August, 2012 but on account of the punishment he has not been allowed to join the promotional post. Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order stating that conduct of the petitioner did not amount to deliberate act of unauthorized absence rather the absence was on account of genuine reason of having fallen ill during the period of 12th May, 2012 till he resumed his duty on 23rd May, 2012, after only a period of 11 days. It is also submitted that the enquiry report itself shows that several witnesses have deposed in his favour, about his illness which he was facing over a period of time in the relevant part of the year and that he had also talked with In-charge of the C.I.D team on 12th May, 2012 itself at 8 a.m. C.D.R records were also called for which also shows a talk of about 30 seconds with the in-charge C.I.D team which has also been accepted by the complainant. Chitranjan Kumar Srivastava, Assistant Sub-Inspector, who used to reside in the same barrack as that of the petitioner also stated that he had orally informed the in-charge C.I.D. team about his illness. However, strangely, after noticing all these, inquiry officer has opined that since no application of leave was made on his behalf therefore, it amounted the case of the misconduct i.e. dereliction of duty and negligence. It is therefore, submitted that the factual aspect of the instant case clearly shows that the petitioner's conduct never amounted to misconduct which would warrant imposition of a punishment. The punishment in fact had serious repercussion as he has not been allowed to join the promotional post also and that has affected him adversely.
(2.) Counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and submitted that the service career of the petitioner shows several instances of absence for which punishment had been imposed upon him. The petitioner was in the habit of absenting on regular basis without any justified cause. In the instant occasion also he remained absent without moving any application. A departmental proceeding was conducted against him in which evidences were adduced and the petitioner was given chance to participate and produce his own defence as well. The inquiry officer has held him guilty as charges have been established against him as he has failed to prefer any application for seeking leave during the period in question. Upon consideration of the enquiry report, therefore, he has been imposed punishment which has also been unsuccessfully challenged in the appeal.
(3.) Counsel for the respondent-State however, does not dispute that the charge-sheet at Annexure-4 did not refer to any previous misconduct of the petitioner. On the other hand, Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that during the service period of the petitioner, he had been awarded 45 times and at the same time imposed with eight minor penalties. However, it is submitted that the impugned order of punishment should not be sustained as it is not in nature of misconduct of unauthorized absence in a deliberate manner.;