Disciplinary authorities must adhere to procedural fairness, including providing defense opportunities, failure of which can breach principles of natural justice, but penalties imposed for gross indiscipline may be upheld if justified.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 07.08.2001 issued by the Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence), Rajasthan, Jaipur cum Disciplinary Authority, whereby pursuant to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, penalty of removal from service has been enforced against the petitioner.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on 08.11.1996 on the post of Sub-Inspector and on 23.11.1996, he reported for training at Rajasthan Police Academy. It is stated that the petitioner submitted applications for granting leave on the ground that his mother was not well. On account of illness of mother, the petitioner could not join the duties, consequently one charge-sheet under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 dated 09.08.1999 was issued to the petitioner leveling charges of willful and unauthorized absence for the period commencing from 29.11.1996 to 14.01.1998.

3. Petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet mentioning therein that on account of illness of his mother and under constraining circumstances where he had to attend his mother during her serious illness, he could not join his duties. He submitted that his absence under the circumstances ought not to have been treated as willful and deliberate, therefore, he prayed for dropping the charge-sheet and exonerating the petitioner. Thereafter, feeling dissatisfied with the reply to the charge-sheet, the Enquiry Officer was appointed vide order dated 12.10.1999 to conduct enquiry against the petitioner. It is submitted that the intimation with regard to initiation of enquiry was not given to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner could not participate in the enquiry, nor could he cross-examine the witnesses produced by the management/employer, nor was he granted any opportunity to place defence evidence on record. Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry in ex-parte manner and on receiving copy of enquiry report, an application was submitted by the petitioner for furnishing him copies of certain valid documents, which were not supplied to the petitioner. As such, in utter violation of provisions of Rule 16 of Rules of 1958, in quite arbitrary and illegal manner disciplinary authority passed the order dated 07.08.2001, whereby penalty of removal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although, in order to enforce discipline, the disciplinary authority has got the right to initiate the enquiry as well as to impose penalty upon the delinquent employee, yet while doing so the disciplinary authority is under the obligation to follow the procedure contemplated under the Rules of 1958. In the instant case, where even defence assistant was not provided to the petitioner and he was also not given opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings, ignoring the defence put forward by the petitioner in his reply to the charge-sheet, harshest penalty of removal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner. It is also submitted that one another officer Shri R. S. Charan was also charge-sheeted with the similar allegation of willful absence, however, lesser penalty of withholding two grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon R.S. Charan, whereas the petitioner has been saddled with grave penalty of removal from service, which is apparent and manifest discrimination on the part of dis