A police officer who is absent from duty without authorization, leaves the headquarters without prior permission, and provides a false local address is guilty of serious misconduct and may be dismissed from service.

JUDGMENT :

Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.:

1. The instant Writ Petition is in assailment of an order dated January 09, 2013 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 214 of 2001.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Administrative Tribunal refused to interfere with the order of his dismissal from service passed in a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him and upheld in appeal thereof.

3. The petitioner was in service as a sepoy in the Calcutta Armed Police. He was a permanent resident of Nadia district and had no local residence at Calcutta. However, with the consent of his maternal uncle, who was also a Sub-Inspector of police, orally provided his residential address as local address of the petitioner to the authorities. It was contended that the said address as wrongly recorded by the staff of the authorities in his Service Book.

4. It was further contention of the petitioner that on August 12, 1999 the petitioner moved to his native village on sick leave for 3 days. He did not join after 3 days for which a warning notice was issued by the authorities. The said notice could not be served upon the petitioner due to wrong recording of his local address. He lost his senses for his illness and his family members were not aware of the procedure to inform the authorities and accordingly, they did not take any steps to inform the authorities or to bring the petitioner to Calcutta Police Hospital for his treatment.

5. Being known from source, the petitioner came to know about a warning notice issued against him, the petitioner came to Calcutta on September 15, 1999 and got himself admitted in Calcutta Police Hospital wherefrom he was discharged on September 29, 1999. Being so discharged he reported to his office but he was not allowed to join. The petitioner also came to know that a proceeding was initiated against him for his unauthorized absence and a notice in this regard was served upon him.

6. It is further submitted that the petitioner responded to such notice by submitting a reply, though, admitted his absence but supplied sufficient explanation for his absence.

7. In consideration of the reply and also after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on the basis of which, Respondent No.3 issued a provisional order asking the petitioner to show cause as to why a major punishment of dismissal from service be not awarded against him. Upon consideration of the show cause reply, submitted by the petitioner on January 13, 2000, a final punishment order was passed against the petitioner dismissing him from service on February 17, 2000.

8. Challenging the said final order of dismissal, the petitioner carried an Appeal before Respondent No. 2 which was dismissed on June 12, 2000. In the meantime, the petitioner, by a writing dated February 16, 2000, was asked to resume his duties. However, when he came to office, he was not allowed to join on the plea that he was already dismissed from service by an order dated February 17, 2000. The appeal carried by the petitioner was however, mechanically dismissed by Respondent No. 2 by order dated June 12, 2000.

9. The petitioner challenged the order of his dismissal as well as the order passed in appeal before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in 2001. The said proceeding at the behest of the petitioner before the Tribunal was dismissed for default on February 9, 2005 for non appearance of his advocate. The petitioner moved for restoration of his application, so dismissed, on June 28, 2012 which was allowed on October 01, 2012. However, upon hearing of the Original Application, the learned Tribunal by the impugned order, negated the claim of the petitioner and dismissed the Original Application. This has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition.

10. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that disciplinary authority and the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the petitioner moved o