NARASIMHA RAO S. Vs. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2011 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No.11525/2002 at Annexure 'C', the order dated 20.06.2000 passed by the 2nd respondent vide annexure A1 (SC.EST(2); DE-8:96-97 APS 135/2000-2001 and also the order dated 21.06.2002, passed by the 1st respondent in appeal No.104/2000-2001 vide Annexure A2, the petitioner has filed this petition, seeking for reinstatement into the service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) As the facts unfurl, this petitioner was working as a Police Constable in Mandya West Police Station; a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him on the charges of unauthorised absence w.e.f 06.08.1996. In the meantime, he was arrested on 05.02.1997, on the charges of theft. Full pledged departmental inquiry was conducted both on the charges of unauthorized absence and theft. In the meantime, he was charge sheeted by the police for the offence of theft and was tried along with co-accused / Fiaz; the case ended in his acquittal. Parallely, the Inquiring Authority submitted it's report holding that the charge is proved. The petitioner filed his remarks to the Inquiry Report. The Disciplinary Authority concurred with the Inquiring Authority and ordered for his compulsory retirement with effect from 20.06.2000. The Appellate Authority dismissed his departmental appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, he approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administration Tribunal Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'). The Tribunal after giving audience to both and on consideration of the entire material on record, dismissed the application.

(3.) Sri Hanumantharayappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that while considering the findings of the Disciplinary Authority about unauthorised absence, the Tribunal found fault with the petitioner for not obtaining medical history sheet maintained in the Police Station in respect of ailing head constables and also noticed that he had not applied for leave in the prescribed form. But the reason for not producing medical history sheet was, despite his request, the Station Authorities did not furnish him medical history sheet and refused to grant leave. The Tribunal has observed that he did not make effort to validate the leave application but such validation of the leave application is only a procedural aspect. He had to remain absent without prior permission because of his sudden unexpected illness. Though he had produced the medical certificate, leave was refused without any reason. Infact, respondent No.2 had deputed one Inspector of Police (west) to ascertain the true facts regarding the illness. The said Inspector visited the hospital, verified his medical records and submitted his report that he had undergone treatment at Bowring Hospital, Bangalore; but said record was not considered either by the Inquiring Authority, Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Tribunal. He was alleged for the offence of selling the stolen two wheelers but the criminal case on the same charges had ended in acquittal. Neither the owners of the vehicles nor the purchasers of the stolen properties were produced in the inquiry, stolen property is not identified; none of the allegations were proved against him. The punishment of compulsory retirement is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct at the fag end of his service and hence, the order passed by Karnataka Administrative Tribunal so also the orders passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, vide Annexures C, A1 and A2 are liable to be quashed with a direction to the respondents to reinstate him into service with consequential benefits.