The punishment awarded to the petitioner must be in conformity with the prescribed rules and procedures, and the appellate authority's order must be supported by sound reasons and in accordance with the law.

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority in Departmental Proceeding no.25/03 and communicated to the petitioner by Memo no.110 dated 24.04.2004 and also the order dated 10.11.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner has further prayed for an order for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

2. According to the petitioner, he was proceeded departmentally on the charge of absence from duty without leave for 16 days. The enquiry officer has found the charge proved. The Disciplinary Authority on that report awarded the ultimate punishment of dismissal of petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority. His appeal was dismissed and the order of Disciplinary Authority has been upheld. The petitioner than preferred a petition before the Inspector General of Police, Hazaribagh, but no order was passed.

3. The main ground on which the impugned orders have been challenged is that the same are arbitrary, mechanical and violative of principle of natural justice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the charges are taken to be proved, punishment of dismissal for the said charge of absence of 16 days is unconscionably disproportionate and harsh.

5. He further submitted that the finding of the Disciplinary Authority is mainly based on the previous record ignoring the requirement of the provisions of Rule-826 of the Police Manual. The prescribed procedure of Rule 828 of the Police Manual has also not been followed. The impugned orders being violative of the said mandatory rules and the principle of natural justice are unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

6. The respondents have opposed the writ petition by filing counter affidavit. It has been stated, inter alia, that the charge was framed against the petitioner and the departmental proceeding was initiated in accordance with law. The prescribed rules and procedures were duly followed. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend.

7. It has been further submitted that the enquiry officer thoroughly considered the facts and evidences on record and found the petitioner guilty of the charge of unauthorized absence from duty for 16 days. This is not for the first time that the petitioner has been proceeded for the charge of unauthorized absence from duty. Earlier also, at least three times, he was proceeded against on the similar charge and punishments were awarded. The department had taken sympathetic view and awarded lighter punishment to the petitioner. But the petitioner repeated the same thing and unauthorizedly absented for 16 days. Punishment of dismissal has been awarded by the Disciplinary Authority taking into the said past record of the petitioner.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and material on record. Without going into the rival contentions of the parties on the factual aspect, this Court finds that neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority has taken consideration of and followed the prescribed rule and procedure in awarding punishment to the petitioner. Rule 826 of the Police Manual provides the procedure and guideline for awarding punishment.

9. Rule 826 runs as follows:

“826. Discrimination necessary in awarding punishments.-The punishment awarded should be in confirmity with the gravity of offence with which the officer is charged and offences involving moral turpitude shall be carefully discriminated from smaller wrong doings. It should also be borne in mind that the previous record of service of the officer concerned, if it is not already included in the charge of the proceeding shall not be taken into account for determining the quantum of punishment.

The objective of awarding punishment is firstly to keep a record of the wrong doings of the officer and secondly as a measure of correction to alert him to improve his work