- (1.) The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 10.8.2009, passed by the disciplinary authority, had preferred this writ petition, but during pendency of the writ petition, the appellate authority had also passed the order dated 29.1.2010 confirming the order of the disciplinary authority, which was challenged by filing I.A. No. 3705/2013. By order dated 23.7.2013, the prayer to challenge the appellate order had been allowed. The brief facts, as has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner, is that the petitioner had been appointed as a constable and was discharging his duty. He had sought leave for ten days, which was granted, but after period of leave, he had not reported to the office and had not given any information for his absence. However, the plea has been taken by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the meantime, he was suffering from Tuberculosis and was under medical treatment and as such he could not report to the office. In his absence, a departmental proceeding was initiated. The disciplinary authority had passed the order terminating the service of the petitioner. It has been submitted that the disciplinary authority without hearing the petitioner had passed the order of dismissal and as such the order of dismissal is contrary to the principle of natural justice. It has been further submitted that the appeal had also been preferred before the Deputy Inspector General of Police being the appellate authority raising all the points and the facts, which had not been considered by the disciplinary authority, but the appellate authority had also not considered the same and passed the appellate order confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal as also the appellate order.
(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition by making specific statements in the counter affidavit drawing the attention of this Court towards the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. It has been submitted that the petitioner, in spite of full notice given to him in this regard to put his defence, had not appeared before the disciplinary authority and as such considering the fact that the petitioner was willingly absent from duty for 187 days, the disciplinary authority had passed the order of dismissal from service. It has been further submitted that the points which have been raised by the petitioner in the appeal, have duly been considered by the appellate authority and thereafter the order of the disciplinary authority has been confirmed by him and there is no infirmity in the same. The impugned orders need no interference of this Court.
(3.) Heard the parties.;