ORDER :

This Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:

“(7.1) That the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be order dated 11.02.2019 (Annexure P/1), order dated 14.08.2018 (Annexure P/2) and order dated 22.06.2018 (Annexure P/3) order passed against petitioner be set aside.

(7.2) That the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be directed to respondents to be given permission to rejoin his post during the pendency of this petition.

(7.3) That, the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be grant any other writ, direction or order which this Hon’ble court may be deem fit.”

2. Petitioner was appointed as Constable by order dated 01.09.1994. A charge sheet was issued against petitioner on the following charges:

(i) From 02.01.2016 to 26.05.2016, he remained on unauthorized absence for a period of 146 days thereby showing his gross negligence in discipline, which made him unfit for Police services.

(ii) On 17.07.2016, he was relieved for Police Station Bijadehi but he did not give his joining on 17.07.2016 and gave his joining on 13.08.2016 and accordingly, he remained on unauthorized absence for 27 days, which is an indicative of gross negligence in discipline and dereliction of duties making him unfit for Police services.

(iii) During Singhasth Mahakumbh Mela organized in the year 2016, he did not report for duty and remained on unauthorized absence, is an indicative of his gross negligence and dereliction of duty.

(iv) Petitioner is habitual of remaining on unauthorized absence and in spite of multiple opportunities to improve his conduct, he did not show any improvement and accordingly, he has made himself unfit for Police services.

3. A departmental enquiry was conducted and all the four charges were found proved and accordingly, by impugned order dated 22.06.2018 he was compulsorily retired and period of his unauthorized absence was decided in accordance as per Rule 24 of M.P. Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1977.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by Inspector General of Police, Hoshangabad Zone by order dated 14.08.2018. Thereafter, a mercy petition was filed, which was dismissed by Director General of Police by order dated 11.01.2019.

5. Challenging the orders passed by authorities below, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that punishment of compulsory retirement is disproportionate to the allegations made against petitioner and accordingly, petitioner may be granted lesser punishment. To buttress his contention, counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and Another reported in 2007(3) MPHT 362, Shailendra Vs. State of M.P. and Another decided on 08.07.2019 in W.P. No.7434/2006 (Indore Bench).

6. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for the State. It is submitted that petitioner was habitual in remaining on unauthorized absence. Even during Singhasth Mahakumbh Mela, 2016 when services of petitioner were required for maintenance of law and order where lakhs of people had gathered, he went on unauthorized absence, which clearly shows that he was not interested in performing his duties. In fact petitioner had deserted his service. Even otherwise, the authorities have adopted a very lenient view by compulsorily retiring him instead of dismissing him from service.

7. Heard the learned counsel for parties.

8. From the order of compulsory retirement, it is clear that on earlier occasions also petitioner was awarded two major punishments and 20 minor punishments for remaining on unauthorized absence. Therefore, it is clear that petitioner was habitual in remaining on unauthorized absence. Police is a disciplined Force in uniform. One of the charge against petitioner was that he was deputed for Mela duty in Singhasth Mahakumbh Mela, Ujjain in the year 2016. Lakhs of people had gathered there. Police Force was required for maintenance of law and order but