The court held that the disciplinary authority's failure to consider the findings of the enquiry officer and to provide the petitioner with a copy of the enquiry report violated the principles of natural justice, and that the punishment of removal from service was arbitrary and excessive.

Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 226 - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - AVAILABILITY - COURT'S DISCRETION - PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT - RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD - PROTECTION - ARBITRARY AND UNJUST ACTION OF STATE - INTERVENTION OF JUDICIARY - SERVICE JURISPRUDENCE - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING REASONS FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY - GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASONS - PROPORTIONALITY OF PUNISHMENT - DOCTRINE OF PROPORTIONALITY - JUDICIAL REVIEW - ARBITRARY AND EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT - INTERFERENCE BY COURT - CASE OF POLICE CONSTABLE REMOVED FROM SERVICE FOR WILFUL ABSENCE FROM DUTY - FINDINGS OF ENQUIRY OFFICER NOT CONSIDERED BY DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY - FAILURE TO SUPPLY COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT TO CONSTABLE - VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - PUNISHMENT HELD TO BE ARBITRARY AND EXCESSIVE - ORDER OF REMOVAL QUASHED - CONSTABLE DIRECTED TO BE REINSTATED WITH CERTAIN PENALTIES.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a police constable, was absent from duty for a period of time due to the serious illness of his wife and the deaths of three close relatives. He was subsequently removed from service for wilful absence from duty. The petitioner challenged the order of removal, contending that it was arbitrary and excessive, and that he had not been given a copy of the enquiry report before the order was passed.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the order of removal was illegal and quashed it. The court found that the disciplinary authority had failed to consider the findings of the enquiry officer, which had concluded that the petitioner's absence was not wilful. The court also found that the disciplinary authority had failed to provide the petitioner with a copy of the enquiry report, in violation of the principles of natural justice. The court further held that the punishment of removal from service was arbitrary and excessive, and that the doctrine of proportionality required a more lenient punishment.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petition was maintainable in light of the availability of an alternative remedy. 2. Whether the disciplinary authority's failure to consider the findings of the enquiry officer and to provide the petitioner with a copy of the enquiry report violated the principles of natural justice. 3. Whether the punishment of removal from service was arbitrary and excessive.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the writ petition was maintainable, even though an alternative remedy was available, because the disciplinary authority's action was arbitrary and unreasonable. The court noted that the petitioner had a right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that the court had a duty to protect this right from arbitrary state action. 2. The court held that the disciplinary authority's failure to consider the findings of the enquiry officer and to provide the petitioner with a copy of the enquiry report violated the principles of natural justice. The court noted that these principles require that a person facing disciplinary action be given a fair hearing, which includes the right to be informed of the charges against them and to be given an opportunity to respond to those charges. 3. The court held that the punishment of removal from service was arbitrary and excessive. The court noted that the petitioner's absence from duty was not wilful, and that he had a valid explanation for his absence. The court also noted that the petitioner had a long and unblemished service record. The court held that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the petitioner's misconduct.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of removal and directed the petitioner to be reinstated with certain penalties.

JUDGMENT

1. - Facts of the case He in a very narrow compass.

2. Petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Police Department with effect from 12.2.82 and he was last posted in District Nagaur at Police Lines. In the month of September 1990 the petitioner's wife got seriously ill. He received a telegram about the illness of his wife, on 18.9.90. He sought casual leave for seven days with permission to avail three gazetted holidays and this leave was sanctioned. Petitioner's wife continued to remain ill as an indoor patient at Government Hospital, Tehsil Baswa District Dausa and since the petitioner had no one else to look after her, he had to stay back at Baswa to look after his wife. He, therefore, sent a telegram to the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur for extension of his leave. The telegram was addressed to the Resident Inspector of Police Lines, Nagaur on 26.9.90. During the period of illness of his wife, petitioner's elder brother's daughter, who had been married recently, expired. Thereafter petitioner's elder brother also died in December 1990 and his wife (petitioner's Bhabhi) died in March 1991. According to the petitioner, he remained under serious mental and physical shock on account of the three consecutive deaths in his family and he could not report for duty. He submitted his joining report on 14.9.91 and also submitted medical certificate of his wife's illness which covered 239 days.

3. An enquiry was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 vide memo dated 14.8.91. Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet and denied the allegations. He gave out details of his absence and reasons for his alleged absence, In his reply the petitioner clearly indicated that three members of his family had died in quick succession and his wife was seriously ill and that was the reason for his absence from duty. Shri Ravi Gaur, a member of the Rajasthan Police Service, was appointed to hold enquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Shri Gaur submitted his report Annexure-2 wherein he recorded a conclusion that although the petitioner had not reported for duty after expiry of the leave sanctioned to him, his absence was on account of serious ailment of his wife and successive deaths of the members of his family. He expressed opinion that the absence cannot be treated to be a wilful absence. At the same time the Enquiry Officer recommended that a sympathetic consideration may be made in the case of petitioner.

4. Completely ignoring the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the recommendation made by him, the Superintendent of Police held that the Enquiry Officer has found the petitioner guilty on all the four charges. He then proceeded to observe that the petitioner has not produced any evidence regarding the deaths of three members of his family and, therefore, the petitioner, who is guilty of habitual absence from duty, deserves to be removed from service. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur passed the impugned order dated 31.12.91.

5. Petitioner has assailed this order on various grounds set out in the writ petition, the most important of them is that a copy of enquiry report was not made available to the petitioner before the Superintendent of Police passed the order of punishment and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his representation in respect of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner had also claimed that the punishment imposed on his is highly excessive and arbitrary and that the disciplinary authority has completely ignored the most important fact relating to the deaths of three members of his family.

6. Respondents have in their reply raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition by stating that the matter can be agitated only at the principal seat of this Court at Jodhpur. Another objection raised by them is that the pet