- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONER , in this writ application, has challenged the order of his dismissal from service, passed by the order of the Superintendent of Police. From the facts stated, by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as appearing from the pleadings in the writ application, it appears that the petitioner being posted as a Constable, was proceeded departmentally on the charges that while he was posted on Sentry duty an inspection was made by the Superior Officers. He was found missing from his place of duty and later on, it was detected that he was sleeping. In the enquiry conducted, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and on the basis of the findings in the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority, after giving the petitioner opportunity of being heard, had passed the impugned order of his dismissal.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of dismissal is improper and rather, illegal in view of the fact that though Rule 826 of the Police Manual, prescribes some specific guidelines in the matter of punishment and it also lays down that the punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the charge, besides a guidance that the Disciplinary authority should bear in mind that the punishment should be corrective in nature unless, the extreme punishment is genuinely demanded, the guidelines were not followed. Learned counsel adds that from perusal of the impugned order, it does not reflect that the Disciplinary Authority has applied his mind to the aspects i.e., the guidelines as laid down n Rule 826 of the State Police Manual. Learned counsel explains that against the impugned order of his dismissal, the petitioner had preferred Appeal before the Appellate Authority, but no order has been communicated to the petitioner by the Appellate Authority and, as such, the petitioner has the impression that his appeal has been rejected.;