JUDGMENT :

Ravi R. Tripathi, J.

This is one matter wherein, even when the Court may have some sympathy or full sympathy for the petitioner, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, who is before this Court, praying that:

"Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction and may be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the respondent No.1 (Deputy Police Commissioner, East Zone, Surat) dismissing the petitioner and order passed by the respondent No.2 (Additional Police Commissioner, Range-1, Surat) confirming the dismissal as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India"

2. The petitioner has set out in the memo of petition in para 2.1 that he was appointed as Unarmed Police Constable by order dated blank October, 1983. The petitioner was transferred to Varacha Police Station in 1998.

3. The present petition is filed challenging the order by which he is dismissed from service for having remained unauthorisedly absent for 620 days starting from 4.10.1991 to 14.6.1993. Incidentally, the petitioner has not referred to in his memo of petition his earlier absence for 74 days starting from 1.4.1991 to 13.6.1991. The case of the petitioner is that on 3rd January, 1991, he was on duty at Matawadi Police Chowki. For every single thing, there are discrepancies in the petition and the documents which are produced along with petition starting with the date of duty i.e. 3.1.1991 because in the documents which are produced, it is mentioned that it was on 4.1.1991 that he was on duty from a.k.t. to 14.30, this is a notice given by the authority which is produced at Annexure-B which does not bear a date on the top (portion) of the notice but at the bottom, it is mentioned 17.2.1992. The learned advocate submitted that in appeal, a copy of which is at Annexure-I, page-34, relevant page is 36 (running page, internal page No.3), it is mentioned that, I (the petitioner) was served with the notice on 15.2.1992 bearing number:P.I.Varachha, Sr. No.141, dated 15.2.1992. It is further stated in that paragraph that, it was served by one Police Constable of Varachha Police Station, named Dalpatbhai Balvantbhai. What is stated further is that, I had accepted that notice on 17.2.1992 making an endorsement that my health is not improving and therefore, it is not possible for me to report for duty.

4. Reading the contents of this paragraph with the contents of document at Annexure-B, the date mentioned at the bottom can be taken to be the date of acceptance of this notice. But it cannot be said to be the date of the notice which appears to be 15.2.1992. What is important is that Annexure-B is a typed written copy of which original is not made available for perusal of the Court. The Court could not have the benefit of seeing the original with the endorsement part. The learned advocate for the petitioner vehemently submitted that this is a case wherein, the Presenting Officer, Presiding Officer (Inquiry Officer) was one and the same and in support of this submission, the learned advocate invited the attention of the Court to averments made in para 2.10 which reads as under:

"2.10. The petitioner respectfully states that it is relevant to note here that P.I. Limbiyat was appointed as inquiry officer by the respondent. The petitioner states that the inquiry officer himself conducted the inquiry and also played the role of presenting officer."

(Emphasis supplied)

5. The learned advocate submitted that except the averments made in the documents produced, there is no independent evidence in the form of document to support these averments. In this regard, the learned advocate relied upon the very same appeal memo (Annexure-I, Page-34), filed by the petitioner; wherein, the petitioner has stated that, 'when I was discharging my duty at Varachha Road Police Station with reference to illness from 4.10.1991 to 14.6.1993 totalling days 620, I was on leave and from time to time ('Vakhotovakhat')