1. - Petitioner-Harish Chandra who was appointed in consideration of the fact that his father, who was also Constable, died while serving the respondents, has approached this Court challenging the order of his dismissal dated 19/1/2000 with the prayer that the aforesaid order be quashed and set-aside and respondents be directed to reinstate him in service with consequential benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner even though initially made submissions on merits but ultimately confined his argument on the question of disproportionate penalty. Matter is therefore examined on the limited aspect as to if the penalty of dismissal would not be disproportionate to the gravity of proven charge of absence of 44 days or it merited some other penalty.

3. Charge No.1 is to the effect that while the petitioner was undergoing basic training in Rajasthan Police Training Centre Jodhpur, the Principal of the Training Centre by his order dated 21/8/1999 required him to report to the 7th Batallion RAC Bharatpur for performing duties in the parliamentary elections but instead of reporting there, petitioner wilfully remained absent continuously from 22/8/1999 to 4/10/1999. Charge No.2 is to the effect that when petitioner was sent for training by the 7th Battalion RAC Bharatpur vide their order dated 24/9/1999, he did not attend such training. Charge No.2 actually is a charge for non reporting for training pursuant to the order dated 24/9/1999 which period is covered during absence for 44 days within charge No.1 itself.

4. According to Shri Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the basic charge that has been found proved against the petitioner is that he remained absented for 44 days. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner could not attend his duties because of his illness and he produced medical certificates of this entire period duly issued by the Government doctors. Such medical certificates ought to have been considered by the disciplinary authority which however attached no credence to them.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others : (2004) 4 SCC 560 and argued that that was also a case where delinquent was a Constable of Delhi Police and charge which was proved against him was for absence of 2 months and 7 days for which he too had applied for leave on medical ground. Supreme Court in that case held that dismissal on ground of alleged misconduct of such absence from duty, was excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. Therefore, while setting aside the order of penalty awarded by the disciplinary authority, direction for reinstatement of the delinquent was issued and the matter was sent back to the disciplinary authority for passing fresh order of punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid judgment applies to the present case on all its four corners. The order of dismissal therefore should be set-aside and the matter should be remanded back to the disciplinary authority for consideration of the question of penalty afresh.

6. Shri Vijay Dutt Sharma, learned Deputy Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and argued that absence of 44 days of a Constable in police force has to be viewed rather seriously. Penalty of dismissal for such a grave charge can neither be said to be excessive nor disproportionate. He argued that the relied judgment of Supreme Court is wholly distinguishable. The petitioner wilfully absented from duties when he was required to perform during 13th Lok Sabha Elections. The writ petition therefore be dismissed.

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to. the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record and cited judgments.

8. It is no doubt true that absence of a member of police force has to be viewed seriously as compared to the absence of an ordinary Government servant. But