Tarun Agarwala, J.;—

The petitioner was appointed as a constable in the year 1995 and was posted at Shahjahanpur on 11.3.2002. The petitioner was assigned Guard duty. Instead of doing his job as assigned to him, he left the place of work and went on an unauthorised leave. It is alleged that the petitioner made an attempt to submit a leave application to the Reserve Inspector, Police Lines, Shahjahanpur which was not accepted. The petitioner, in this manner, remained on unauthorised leave for 340 days and submitted his joining alongwith the medical certificates, etc, on 13.2.2003. The petitioner was allowed to join his services and subsequently on 28.6.2003, the petitioner was transferred to district Budaun.

The matter relating to unauthorised leave for 340 days was examined by the authorities and, on 12.2.2004, the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur (hereinafter referred to as the SP) issued a charge sheet. The petitioner submitted his reply justifying his absence. The reply was not found to be satisfactory and accordingly an oral inquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Officer examined the witnesses and the documents and gave full opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witness and defend himself. It transpires that 7.9.2004 was the date fixed for examining the witness of the prosecution on which date, the petitioner neither appeared nor moved an application for adjournment. As a result, the witness of the prosecution was examined and the evidence of the employer was closed. The record reveals that the Enquiry Officer had sent a notice to the petitioner indicating that if the petitioner wished to examine or wanted to produce his witness, he may do so. Since no reply came from the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer closed the enquiry proceedings and submitted his report which was duly examined by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, therefore, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he may not be awarded a punishment. The petitioner again submitted a reply defending himself and contended that the principles of natural justice was not followed by the Enquiry Officer. The competent authority, namely the SP, after examining the matter, passed two orders on 6.5.2005. By one order, the disciplinary authority affirmed the findings of the Enquiry Officer and, considering the gravity of the charge, and the discipline which is required to be maintained in the police force, passed an order of dismissal for the unauthorised absence from duty. By another order of the same date, the authority on the principle of 'No Work, No Pay', declined to grant pay for the period of his unauthorised absence.

Against the order of the dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed and thereafter he filed a revision which also met the same fate. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, has filed the present writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three grounds of attack, namely, that the petitioner was absent only for 340 days and such absence does not amount to a grave misconduct justifying the order of dismissal. The learned counsel submitted that the dismissal order was too harsh a punishment in the light of the circumstances explained by the petitioner giving reasons for his absence and further contended that no opportunity was given to cross-examine the witness of the employer and that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. This allegation has been spelled out in paragraph-17 of the writ petition wherein it was urged that because the petitioner was not relieved from district Budaun, he was unable to attend the proceedings on 7.9.2004 and was unable to cross examine the witness of the employer.

It was further contended that in view of para-479 (e) of the Police Regulations, the order of dismissal can only be passed by the Superintendent of Police, Badaun, where the peti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document