- (1.) Petitioner being aggrieved with the orders dated 9.8.2007 and 22.11.2007 by which the petitioner has been terminated from service, has approached this Court. The brief facts of the case, as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner had been appointed as constable in District Force on 15.7.1988 and started serving his duty, he was also promoted in the year 2001. While the petitioner was posted at District Force, Ranchi, a memorandum of charge had been served upon him due to his unauthorized absent from 29.3.2005 to 28.10.2006, on that ground, petitioner had been put under suspension on 20th December, 2005. The disciplinary authority after accepting the findings given by the enquiry officer passed the order of removal from service against which the petitioner had preferred appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur Range, Ranchi who has affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. It has further been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the entire proceeding has been concluded ex-parte, the petitioner has not been provided any opportunity to defend his case, in his absence, since the proceeding has been concluded, the petitioner could not be able to put his defence regarding mental illness and as such it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that there is violation of principles of natural justice. It has further been submitted that in the memorandum of appeal, although he has raised all the facts by giving a medical certificate, but the appellate authority without applying its mind upon the findings given by the disciplinary authority has passed the order of removal of petitioner from service.
(2.) It has further been submitted that petitioner has been appointed on 15.7.1988, he has rendered about 19 years of his regular service, there is no allegation of any habitual absentees against him, hence the punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh and as such it needs reconsideration by the competent authority.
(3.) On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that the period of absence is about 575 days, petitioner being the member of Disciplined Force has remained absent from the office without giving any information to the controlling authority, which is the gross misconduct, it has further been submitted that the petitioner ought to have brought to notice of the controlling authority with respect to his illness but he has taken casually and did not inform and remained absent for the period of 575 days. The disciplinary authority has tried his level best to serve notice upon the petitioner, but since petitioner was absent without any information, hence the Department cannot wait indefinitely for his appearance, and as such the disciplinary authority had no option except to pass the order of dismissal, it has further been submitted by the counsel for the respondent-State that the plea taken by the petitioner has not been considered by the appellate authority is totally false, since appeal is continuation to the original proceeding, the plea taken by the petitioner regarding mental illness has been considered by the appellate authority. Hence it cannot be said that the petitioner has not been provided opportunity to defend himself properly.;