The High Court upheld the dismissal of a constable for unauthorized absence, ruling that appropriate procedures were followed, and punishment was not disproportionate to the violations committed.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in memo No. 257 dated 02.02.2020 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.4 by which the petitioner’s appeal preferred against the order of dismissal from service has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order as contained in memo No. 4623 dated 30.09.2019 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.5 in Seraikella-Kharsawan District Departmental Proceeding No. 20 of 2019 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service w.e.f. 30.09.2019 with further direction to forfeit his salary for the period from 06.02.2018 to 23.11.2018 i.e. 291 days and from 24.11.2018 to 07.01.2019 i.e. 45 days (total 336 days) on the principle of ‘No Work, No Pay’ as the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from duty during the said period which has been ordered to be accommodated in extraordinary leave. It has also been mentioned in the punishment order that the petitioner will be entitled to get only the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension i.e. from 08.01.2019 to 02.04.2019. The petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondents to re-instate him in service with all consequential benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as constable on 05.09.2010 at Chatra district on compassionate ground and he was transferred in December, 2012 to Seraikella-Kharsawan district where he served for a period of seven years. He was falsely implicated in connection with Seraikella P.S. Case No. 14 of 2018 registered under Section 376 of IPC in which he was granted bail. He was put under suspension on 10.09.2018 and thereafter Departmental Proceeding No. 20 of 2019 was initiated against him. In course of departmental proceeding, a show cause notice was issued to him by the respondent No.5 wherein two charges were levelled against him; one was with respect to unauthorized absence of 336 days (291 days + 45 days) from duty and another was with respect to the said criminal case i.e. Seraikella P.S. Case No. 14/2018 instituted against him under of alleging dereliction of duty, arbitrariness, moral turpitude and incompetence for the police force. He submitted his reply to the respondent No.5 denying the allegations levelled against him, however, the respondent No.5 vide the impugned order as contained in memo No. 4623 dated 30.09.2019, dismissed him from service with immediate effect. He thereafter preferred an appeal before the respondent No.4 against the said order of dismissal, however, the same was rejected vide the impugned order as contained in memo No. 257 dated 02.02.2020.

3. It is further submitted that on perusal of both the orders passed by the respondent No.5 as well as the respondent No.4, it would be evident that due procedure as mentioned in Rule-824 of the JHARKHAND POLICE MANUAL has not been followed before inflicting punishment of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. Moreover, sufficient opportunity of hearing has also not been provided to the petitioner and the punishment inflicted upon him is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. Since the said criminal case lodged against the petitioner is still pending before the Trial Court, the disciplinary proceeding ought to have been stayed till conclusion of the same.

4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was an accused in connection with Seraikella P.S.