Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts cannot reassess evidence or interfere unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of present petition, under Articles 14, 16, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order/decision dated 19/06-07/2016 terminating the service of the petitioner and prayed inter-alia that:-

“(a) Your Lordship may be pleased to quash and set aside the order / decision dated 19/6-7/2016 being No. KHTP/4/z/Re.A.-114-15/1852/2016, whereby, the respondent no.1 Director General Of Police pleased to dismiss the Revision Application being No. 114 of 2015 and confirm the termination order passed by the respondent no 2 superintendent of Police Surat and direct the respondent no.1 to reinstate the petitioner on his original post by way of issuing writ of mandamus and/or certiorari and/or any other writ, order or directions.

(b) Such other and further reliefs as are deemed fit in facts and circumstances of this case may kindly be granted.

(c) To provide cost of this petition.”

2. The brief facts giving rise to present petition are that the present petitioner was serving in the Police Department as Armed Lok Rakshak since 19/10/2006 with full honesty, sincerely. The present petitioner served with the Chargesheet on 30/08/2013 for unauthorized absenteeism from 29/12/2010. In past also the petitioner remained unauthorized absent from the service and therefore, the department took action against the petitioner and served the Chargesheet. The second charge was that on 24/04/2012 the petitioner entered in to the premises of the Dakshaben Dabhi i.e. wife of the petitioner and threatened her.

2.1 Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and submitted the documents and reply. Due to the medical problem of his father, the petitioner could not remain present on duty. There is matrimonial dispute with the petitioner and his wife and wife has filed criminal complaint against the present petitioner and present petitioner has to appears in that proceedings and defend himself. Therefore, due to matrimonial and medical problem, the petitioner could not remain present on duty.

2.2 After full-fledged inquiry, the inquiry officer by his order dated 01/11/2014 held that the charges against the petitioner were proved and recommended the termination. On 02/12/2014, the petitioner filed detailed representation/reply and narrated all the difficulties faced by the petitioner during that period.

2.3 The respondent has not considered the request of the petitioner and by order dated 29/01/2015 terminated the service of the petitioner.

2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the respondent no.3, the present petitioner has filed the Appeal before the respondent no.2 on 22/04/2015. After hearing, the respondent no.2 has dismissed the appeal by order dated 02/06/2015. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order date 02/06/2015, the petitioner has filed the Revision Application No. 114 of 15 before the respondent no.1. After hearing, the respondent no 1 by his order dated 19/06-07/2016 dismissed the Revision Application No. 114 of 2015 and confirmed the order passed by the respondent no.3 terminating the service of the petitioner.

2.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 19/06-07/2016 passed by the respondent no.1, the petitioner has filed present petition.

3. I have heard Mr. Hiren Modi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Nirali Sarda, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for the respondents.

4. It appears from the record that the petitioner was originally appointed as Armed Lok Rakshak in the police department and from 2006 the petitioner was working as Armed Lok Rakshak. The petitioner was served with chargesheet dated 30th August 2013, alleging that the petitioner was absent from service from 29.12.2010 without prior permission of the superior officer and thereafter, number of notices were issued to the petitioner to remain personally present and join the duty, however the petitioner did not remain present on duty and therefore, for the charge alleged in