PRAMATH PATNAIK,J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing punishment order dated 21.01.2008 whereby the petitioner has been discharged from the services and appellate order dated 05.06.2008 as well as memorial order dated 20.12.2008, whereby the order passed by the disciplinary authority has been affirmed, with all consequential benefits.
(2.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that petitioner was appointed as 'Cook' in Jharkhand Armed Police at Jamshedpur on 04.01.2001 on compassionate ground. It is stated that on the ground of illness of his mother, the petitioner was granted 10 days leave but he did not join on scheduled arrival time and joined his duty after delay of 40 days due to prolonged illness of his mother. It has further been stated that after resuming his duties, the petitioner was put under suspension and departmental proceeding was initiated against him, which culminated in the impugned punishment, which is under challenge.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that over -stay of the petitioner is not willful and due to illness of his mother, he could not join his duties and it is not the case where the delinquent -petitioner proceeded to leave without sanction rather it is a case of over -stay, that too, with valid reason and in support thereof, the petitioner has submitted Medical Certificate of his mother's illness before the authorities concerned. Since, the overstay is not intentional, the same does not come under the definition of misconduct as per Rule 843 the Police Manual. It has further been submitted that the departmental proceeding was initiated on vague charges and the enquiry officer after examining only one witness has given its finding without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case. Besides, the conducting officer did not furnish copy of his findings to commandant before passing final order of punishment, thereby violated Rule 828 of the Police Manual. It has further been submitted that the Commandant, J.A.P -5 without scrutinizing the findings of the conducting officer agreed with the conducting officer and awarded extreme punishment of discharge from services without asking for second show notice, which is violative of Rule 828 (b) of the Police Manual. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the alleged charge. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment rendered in the case of Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Limited & Another Vs. Jai Raj Singh Chauhan as reported in (2011) 13 SCC 541 and further in the case of Jai Bhagwan Vs. Commissioner & Ors as reported in (2013) 11 SCC 187.;