JUDGMENT

Ajit Kumar, J.

Heard Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order firstly by the disciplinary authority dated 26.06.2019, whereby, petitioner has been reverted back by five years to the minimum of the pay scale of a Constable, the order of the appellate authority dated 04.05.2020 affirming the same and of the revisional authority dated 17.11.2020 rejecting the revision on the ground that there is no procedural flaw in the matter of disciplinary proceedings.

3. The facts in a narrow compass can be drawn like this that the petitioner was issued with a charge sheet for remaining absent from duty w.e.f. 05.06.2002. He was proceeded against by holding a disciplinary proceeding and conducting departmental inquiry as a part thereof and since he was found guilty of the charges, he was issued with show cause notice on 01.04.2003 which was caused to be served upon him through his wife Smt. Sunita Yadav on 23.04.2003, however, when no reply was received from the petitioner, the disciplinary authority proceeded to inflict punishment of removal from service for being absent w.e.f. 05.06.2000 till the date of passing of the order and since he did not discharge his duties from 05.06.2002 till 28.05.2003 his leave was allowed without pay. This order came to be challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 15753 of 2006 and the Court found two directions in the punishment order to be self contradictory and accordingly the order dated 20.05.2003 was set aside.

4. The matter was remitted to the stage of inquiry report with a direction to the disciplinary authority to serve copy of inquiry report upon the petitioner and seek his reply and then decide the matter again. Thus, the disciplinary authority was to initiate the disciplinary proceedings from the stage of submission of reply by the petitioner to the inquiry report. The penultimate paragraph of the order is reproduced hereunder:

Accordingly, you are issued with the show cause notice to submit your reply within 15 days of its receipt as to why you may not be punished by withholding three increments permanently and reverting you to the minimum of the pay scale admissible to the Constables for a period of five years under the U.P. Subordinate Police Officers (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1991 for carelessness in discharge of official duty and indiscipline.

(English translation by Court)

5. Petitioner was reinstated in the service with status of suspended employee, and the direction was issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar on 18.07.2018 to supply the petitioner copy of inquiry report along with charge sheet seeking his reply within a month. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with charge sheet dated 28.07.2018 though without imputation of any particular charge, asking the petitioner to submit reply in his defence by 05.08.2018 failing which, it would be taken that petitioner had nothing to say and authority would accordingly proceed to pass orders.

6. Petitioner submitted his reply to the alleged charge sheet and took specific ground that this de novo inquiry was totally uncalled for under Rule 14(1) of 1991 Rules, however, still he explained away that since he was not feeling well and had an acute stomache while he was on duty as Tehsil Guard, he got himself examined at the Primary Health Centre, Meerapur, Muzaffarnagar where he was diagnosed to be suffering from Hepatitis B and Jaundice and then he explained as to how he suffered from such serious disease and could recover only on 25.05.2003 and so he reported for duty on 28.05.2003, at Reserve Police Lines, Muzaffarnagar. His records and medical certificates were not seen and he was removed from service on 28.05.2003. He claimed to be entitled for medical leave or his absence could have been condoned by adjusting the leave already available in his account under the relevant service rules and that he could have