Honble MADAN, J.–This writ petition arises out of an order of removal of the petitioner from service duly upheld by the appellate Authority (respondents) in disciplinary inquiry initiated for the charges as to the absence from head quarter station at Shamgarh (Kota) and overstay permitted ten days during the period of suspension.

(2). In nut shell, the facts relevant for the present controversy are thus:-

After completion of initial training course from 15.12.86 to 14.7.87 and further practical training from 15.7.87 to 14.8.87, the petitioner was appointed as Constable and then confirmed as such. However, he was placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary inquiry by suspension order dated 15.1.90 (Annex.1), whereby he was directed to report his attendance daily at Kota (W) but with a specific condition that he is not permitted to leave his headquarter during suspension without permission of the competent authority since otherwise he will be liable to the taken up for necessary disciplinary actin under RPF Rules. By subsequent order dated 19.3.90 the Divisional Security Commissioner (RPF) Kota (respondent No.3) shifted headquarter of the petitioner from Kota to Shyamgarh with immediate effect, whereby it was also specified that during suspension the petitioner would be subject to responsibilities of the members of the Force u/Rule 143 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (for short, ``RPF). Admittedly pursuant to order dated 19.3.90 he petitioner reported for attendance at Shyamgarh (100 kms. away from Kota) on 23.3.90.

(3). It is the case of the petitioner that he was asked by Shri L.R. Jatav, Post Commander RPF Post Shyamgarh, to record his presence twice every day once at 10 AM and secondly, at 6 PM, inasmuch as he was further directed to come to the office like a regular employee as if not under suspension. His further case is that since he raised finger against the attitude of Shri Jatav by way of his written representation dt.17.4.90 (Annex.2), Shri Jatav got furious resulting into making him s absent in the muster roll on 17.4.90, besides further showing absent on the three more days from 27.4.90 to 29.4.90.

(4). It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was granted permission to leave head quarter for ten days on the ground of his wife being critically ill, and therefore, he left Shyamgarh post in the afternoon of 22.5.90 and continued to remain absent by sending no application for leave but transmitting only sickness certificate of his wife one after the other, though it is the allegation of the petitioner that he did not requests for leave extension or permission thereof by registered posts (Annex.3), but he reported back on 23.9.90.

(5). Ultimately, a memo dt.22/27-09/1990 alongwith charge-sheet and statement of allegation u/Rule 53 of he RPF rules, was served on the petitioner, as per which, despite written orders the petitioner remained absent at the head quarter on 17.4.90, from 27.4.90 to 29.4.90 and from 2.6.90 to 22.9.90. One, M.M. Parashar, an office of the rank of Inspector was appointed as inquiry officer but the petitioner applied for change of this inquiry officer by his letter dt.18.10.90 but his request was turned down on 24.10.90.

(6). It is also the case of the petitioner that he was not afforded sufficient opportunity to appoint his defence nominee which was necessary under the rules because of he being an illiterate person, and as he was not familiar with the niceties of procedure pertaining to disciplinary inquiry, in as much as the only witness examined by the department was Shri L.R. Jatav, who bore animosity and bias against him and to whom only one question was put as to whether letters (Annex.5 to 13) were issued under his signatures or not. In defence the petitioner did also submit his final statement (Annex.15) on 12.11.90. However, the Inquiry Officer produced his report (Annex.16) on 29.12.90 holding that the charges imputed against the petitioner were proved.

(7

Click Here to Read the rest of this document