Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1062
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AJAY BHANOT, J.
Constable 339/381 C.P. Santosh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ A. No. 4233 of 2014
Decided On : 24-04-2019
For the Appellant : P. C. Pandey, Kashinaresh Mishra
The court emphasized the rigorous standards of discipline expected from uniformed police personnel and upheld the dismissal as a balanced response to the misconduct.
Headnote:
Disciplinary Proceedings - Unauthorized Absence from Duty - Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) - The Hon'ble Supreme Court's interpretation of unauthorized absence from duty and the application of the doctrine of proportionality - [UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCE FROM DUTY] - [Disciplinary Proceedings] - [Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii)] - The court discussed the charges against the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings, and the application of the doctrine of proportionality in imposing the punishment of dismissal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Constable in the U.P. Police Force, was charged with unauthorized absence from duty. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and the petitioner was ultimately dismissed from service. The petitioner challenged the dismissal in a writ petition, contending that the enquiry report was ex-parte, and his absence from duty was due to medical reasons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges against the petitioner were proved, and his absence from duty was willful. The court also held that the punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct charged and indicted. The court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's unauthorized absence from duty, the application of the doctrine of proportionality in imposing the punishment of dismissal, and the compliance with principles of natural justice in the disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the Hon'ble Supreme Court's interpretation of unauthorized absence from duty and the doctrine of proportionality in reviewing the punishment imposed. The court emphasized the rigorous standards of discipline expected from uniformed police personnel and upheld the dismissal as a balanced response to the misconduct.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner from service.
ORDER :
Ajay Bhanot, J.
1. Heard Sri P.C. Pandey and Kashinaresh Mishra, learned counsels for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner was a Constable in the U.P. Police Force. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the foot of a charge sheet dated 09.09.2011.
3. The disciplinary proceedings culminated in the order of termination of the services of the petitioner passed by the disciplinary authority on 13.04.2012. The petitioner carried the order of termination before the appellate authority. The appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority on 29.11.2012. Not satisfied, the petitioner took the order of the appellate authority in revision, with no better results. The revision was dismissed by order dated 31.07.2013. The termination was thus affirmed by the appellate and the revisional authority.
4. Aggrieved by the orders dated 13.04.2012, 29.11.2012 and 31.07.2013 passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority respectively, the petitioner instituted the present writ petition and has assailed the aforesaid orders in the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the orders assailed in the writ petition are vitiated as the enquiry report was ex-parte to the petitioner. Secondly during the period of absence the petitioner was under treatment for the grievous injuries sustained in an accident. His absence from duty was not willful.
The last submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct the petitioner was charged with.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs Union of India and Another reported at 2012 (3) SCC 178.
6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the charges against the petitioner stood proved before the enquiry officer. The petitioner did not cooperate with the enquiry officer. All authorities applied their mind independently to the facts and evidences in the record. All the concerned authorities passed orders while complying with principles of natural justice. Further he submits that the police force is a disciplined force and absence from duty for such a long period is a grave misconduct which cannot be condoned in the interest of institutional discipline.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. The charges laid out in the charge sheet disclose that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from duty w.e.f. 04.07.2010.
The petitioner was posted at Kotwali Farrukhabad, District Fatehgarh in the year 2010. The petitioner was detailed for VVIP duty at Kanpur on 01.07.2010. After the completion of the assigned VVIP duty, the petitioner was required to report back at his place of posting at Kotwali Farrukhabad, District Fatehgarh. The petitioner failed to report for duty at his place of posting on 04.07.2010. Thereafter the petitioner was continuously absent from duty.
The charge sheet records that the conduct of the petitioner was an act of dereliction of duty. The charge sheet also contains a list of adverse materials which were proposed to be relied against the petitioner in the enquiry.
9. The enquiry officer nominated to conduct an enquiry of the petitioner issued notice to the petitioner intimating him the date of the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry report has been brought in the record by the State authorities by means of a supplementary counter affidavit.
10. The enquiry report records that the letter intimating the petitioner about the first date of the enquiry proceedings was sent on 06.09.2011. The letter intimating the date of the enquiry proceedings was personally received by the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer on 09.09.2011 and was served a copy of the charge sheet as well as the memo of evidences proposed to be relied upon.
11. The petitioner was granted time
