- (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the disciplinary authority dated 01.03.2012 and order dated 13.10.2012 passed by the appellate authority pertaining to dismissal from services and for direction to respondents for reinstatement in services.
(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application is that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1982 and while continuing as Hawaldar, a departmental proceeding no.23/11 was initiated in the year 2011 for long unauthorized absence from duty since 2006. The charge was levelled against the petitioner and remained unauthorized absence from various different period since 2006 to 2008. The petitioner submitted his defence before the inquiry officer intimating the mental illness and submitted the medial reports of mental diseased from the specialist of RINPAS. Without giving opportunity of being heard, the petitioner services have been terminated by the respondents vide memo dated 01.03.2012 passed by Superintendent of Police, Godda and being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred appeal which was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide memo dated 13.10.2012 vide Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ application.
(3.) Mr. Ravi Kerketta, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that without show cause notice the petitioner services has been dispensed therefore there has been violation of principle of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been inflicted with punishment of dismissal from services but the same has been passed without adhering with the audi alteram partem therefore the actions of the respondent tantamounts to denial which is utter violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. During course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to decisions as reported in 2005 (13) SCC 709 in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Datta Linga Toshatwad at paragraph no.5, which is quoted herein below: 5. Even if the High Court came to the conclusion that the punishment inflicted was grossly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged, it ought to have remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the matter as regards the punishment to be inflicted, but the High Court did not choose to do so. However, it is not necessary for us to do so since we are of the view that the punishment inflicted on the respondent is not grossly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to decisions as reported in 2016 (1) JLJR 509 at paragraph nos. 16 to 20, 2012 (2) JLJR 129 at paragraph nos. 11, 15, 19 and 2012 (4) JLJR 591 at paragraph nos. 6 and 7. ;