Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter -alia prayed for quashing of Ranchi District Order No. 4799 of 2010 passed by Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ranchi (respondent No. 3) in Departmental Proceeding No. 90 of 2010 issued vide memo dated 28.10.2010 pertaining to dismissal from services and appellate order dated 23.02.2011 passed by respondent No. 2 i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chhotanagpur Region, Ranchi confirming the order of disciplinary authority by dismissing the appeal and for reinstatement of the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits.
(2.) The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that while being posted as Constable Ranchi, the petitioner took leave for 7 days on 15.10.2008 and the said leave was allowed by the concerned authority but during the leave period, the petitioner suffered mental illness and was treated at Kanke, Ranchi by Dr. Ashish Soy, and after recovering from illness, the petitioner reported in Police Centre, Ranchi on 22.11.2009 i.e. after lapse of 395 days. The petitioner was served with a charge on 26.04.2010 with allegations on sanctioned leave and he was placed under suspension by the said order dated 26.04.2010 and on receipt of the charge the petitioner submitted his reply explaining the reasons for his absence from duty due to mental illness and prayed for revocation of the order of suspension. However, a departmental proceeding was initiated and inquiry officer was appointed, who conducted inquiry. After examining the witnesses, inquiry officer submitted his enquiry report finding him guilty of charges. After receipt of the inquiry report, respondent No. 3 sent show cause to the petitioner on the proposed termination from services and the petitioner submitted his show cause explaining reasons for his absence. But to the utter misfortune the respondent No. 3 terminated the petitioner from services vide order dated 28.10.2010 against which, the petitioner being aggrieved by the order preferred appeal but the appellate authority rejected the same vide order dated 23.02.2011. Being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority dated 28.10.2010 by respondent No. 3 and the order dated 23.02.2011 by respondent No. 2, the petitioner left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy has invoked extra -ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the impugned order of dismissal from services have been passed without observing the principle of natural justice and as also no opportunity has been given to the petitioner to cross -examine the witnesses. Moreover, the medical certificate submitted by the petitioner has not been properly appreciated by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, therefore, the impugned order of dismissal from services being affirmed by the appellate authority have been passed being actuated by arbitrariness, mala fide and personal biasness. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from services is to excessive, severe and harsh so as to shock the judicial conscience. Therefore, the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from services is liable to be interfered with. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order passed by the appellate authority is cryptic, non -speaking and non -reasoned order. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's absence was not willful but due to unavoidable circumstances because of the mental illness. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in course of argument, has cited the decision reported in : (2012) 3 SCC 178 in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India And Another at para 17. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorized absence, but it does not always mean willful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalization, etc.,;