The punishment of dismissal from service for absence from duty without leave for a period of 180 days in a Police force cannot be held to be shockingly disproportionate warranting interference by the Court.

1. - This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.04.2008 whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging order of his dismissal from service has been dismissed.

2. The appellant-petitioner has been appointed as Constable with the Rajasthan Police in the year 1976. In the year 1986 while he was posted at Fatehpur in District Sikar, he is stated to have absented himself without leave. He was charge-sheeted and a regular inquiry was held against him by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur for the following charges :

"vkjksi ua0 1% vki Jh jkepUnz dkfu0 132 o"kZ 1986 esa dkfu0 ds in ij iqfyl Fkkuk Qrsgiqj ij rSukr FksA fnukad 02-07-1986 dks vki Fkkukf/kdkjh }kjk eatwj 'kqnk vodk'k ij jokuk gq, ,oa le; ij mifLFkr u gksxj xSj gkftj gks x,A vkjksi ua0 2% mDr xSj gkt+jh dky esa fnukad 09-08-1986 dks vkius Qwy pan] /khj jke ds lkFk feydj ?khlk jke ij fjokWYoj ls xksyh pyk dj izk.k ?kkrd geyk fd;k ftl ij vkids fo:) eq0ua0 91@98 /kkjk 307@34 rk0 fg0 Fkkuk j?kqukFkx<+ ij iathc) gksdj fnukad 25-02-1987 dks pkyku is'k vnkyr fd;k x;kA vkjksi ua0 3% vki iqfyl ykbu] lhdj ls fnukad 31-12-1984 dks le; 1-30 ih0,e0 ij xSj gkftj gksdj fnukad 20-01-1985 le; 11 ,0,e0 rd 19 ;kse fnukad 20-03-1985 ls le; 4 ih0,e0 ls 17-04-1985 le; 11-45 ,0,e0 rd 27 ;kse fnukad 12-06-1985 ls le; 6 ih0,e0 ls 08-07-1985 le; 11-40 ,0,e0 rd 25 ;kse fnukad 24-07-1985 ls le; 8-30 ih0,e0 ls 31-07-1985 le; 11-55 ,0,e0 rd 6 ;kse] fnukad 03-01-1986 ls le; 12-30 ih0,e0 ls 18-01-1986 le; 2 ih0,e0 rd 15 ;kse xSj gkftj jgk rFkk fnukad 18-01-1986 dks iq0yk0 lhdj ls rcknys ij jokuk gksdj fnukad 22-04-1986 le; 6 ih0,e0 ij tk;s rSukrh Fkkuk Qrsgiqj 95 fnu xSj gkftj jg dj igqaps ,oa iqy ls Hkh LosPNk ls xSj gkftj jgus ds vkfn ik;s x,A"

3. The Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur who was the Disciplinary Authority held the charges No. 1 and 3 to be proved against the appellant/petitioner and dismissed him from service vide order dated 02.04.1988. Appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner filed against order of dismissal was dismissed but on his Review Petition, the Governor remanded the matter with direction to provide copy of inquiry report to the appellant. Though copy of the inquiry report is stated to have been supplied to him but appellant-petitioner did not file any representation there against. However, he preferred writ petition before this Court wherein vide order dated 27.02.1998 the respondents were directed to furnish him a copy of the inquiry report and the appellant herein was permitted to file representation. The disciplinary authority after considering the representation filed by appellant-petitioner vide order dated 15.05.1998 maintained dismissal order dated 02.04.1988.

4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that he does not wish to assail the findings recorded in the inquiry but is confining his argument to the proportionality of punishment. He submitted that as the absence from duty was on account of involvement of the appellant-petitioner in a criminal case and he promptly resumed the duty after his acquittal therein, the punishment of dismissal of service is wholly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against him.

5. We are of the considered view that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner was a Constable in disciplined Police force. It was bounden duty of the appellant to have diligently discharged his duty and in case he had to absent himself on account of any emergent situation, he should have duly obtained leave. It cannot in any way accepted that a member of Police force would remain absent from duty without leave for a period as long as 180 days. It could have been a different matter if the appellant been absented himself for only few days and furnished cogent explanation for the same.

6. It is well settled that interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction i