The dismissal of an employee from service can be upheld if found proportionate to the misconduct of prolonged unauthorized absence, particularly in disciplined forces.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :

1. Heard Mr. Satish Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Learned AC to AG.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30-06-2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3235/2020 whereby and whereunder, the challenge made to the order of dismissal of the writ petitioner/appellant from service has been rejected.

3. The factual aspects of the case reveal that the writ petitioner had joined the post of Police Constable on 27-06-2005. On account of his unauthorised absence from duty, he was suspended and the reply to the show cause having been found unsatisfactory, a departmental proceeding was initiated. The enquiry officer had found the charge of gross indiscipline and dereliction of duty to be true and based on the enquiry report, an order was passed on 13-08-2018 by the respondent no. 4 by which the writ petitioner was dismissed from service. The writ petitioner had preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 3 which also was rejected by Memo No. 1386/General Section. The dismissal of the appeal prompted the writ petitioner to submit a memorial petition, which also was negated vide Memo No. 24/D dated 06-02-2020.

4. It has been submitted by Mr. Satish Prasad, learned counsel appearing from the writ petitioner/appellant that the enquiry report is perverse as the same has not taken into consideration the grounds enunciated by the writ petitioner in his show cause of his mother being terminally ill due to which he had to leave station. It has been submitted that the writ petitioner had put in 13 years of diligent service and merely on account of his absence for intermittent periods, the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate to the charges. The learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated these aspects of the matter in its true perspective.

5. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned AC to AG has submitted that the writ petitioner had absented himself from duty without informing anyone on three occasions and the total period of absence was 165 days. The writ petitioner was earlier imposed punishments on several occasions and taking him back in service would be detrimental to the spirit and discipline of the police force.

6. It is an admitted fact that the writ petitioner had absented himself from duty in three instalments of 70 days, 6 days and 63 days from training at Jungle Warfare School, Netarhat and 26 days from the Headquarters. The writ petitioner was deputed for duty in the district of Latehar in sensitive areas on the occasion of Durga Puja and Muharram, but he absented himself from duty without informing his superiors. The inquiry report reveals that the cause shown by the writ petitioner is the illness of his mother, but no document in support thereof had been submitted by him. No glitch in the departmental proceeding regarding the procedure adopted has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Though the writ petitioner has brought on record, some of the prescriptions indicating the illness of his mother, but the same does not indicate about such seriousness which would have prompted the writ petitioner to repeatedly leave his place of duty without information. In fact, one of the prescriptions has prescribed Ayurvedic treatment and what can be deduced is of pain in the knees. The act of the writ petitioner in repeatedly absenting himself from duty without information clearly proves his dereliction in duty and the feeble attempts made by him in order to justify such absenteeism has rightly been rejected by the authorities. The decision-making process in the present case cannot be called into question and consequently the scope of ju