ORDER

1. The instant petition has been preferred by petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking following reliefs :--

(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed.;

(ii) That, the order dated 29.8.2017 Annexure P/1, order dated 27.11.2017 Annexure P/2 and the charge-sheet Annexure P/4 may kindly be directed to be quashed and the respondents No.3 may kindly be directed to regularize the period of absent of the petitioner from 17.7.2016 to 12.9.2016 and pay the difference of salary from that period along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

(iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner. Cost be also awarded in favour of the petitiner.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are petitioner was appointed on the post of Police Constable on 25.9.2012 in District Force, Ashoknagar. It appears that because of some medical condition, petitioner remained absent from his duties for the period between 17.7.2016 to 12.9.2016 (total 58 days) unauthorizedly and therefore, a charge-sheet was issued against him with the allegations of carelessness and insubordination and thus violation of Clause 64 (2) and (4) of the Police Regulation. In departmental enquiry, S.D.O.P. Mungawali was appointed as Enquiry Officer and enquiry was conducted. Enquiry Officer found the charges as proved and placed the matter before S.P. Ashoknagar, who inflicted a punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect which would have adverse bearing over the pensionary and other retiral dues of the petitioner. Against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal but same was dismissed by DIG, Gwalior Range, Gwalior. Therefore, this petition has been preferred.

3. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that respondents proceeded arbitrarily and Enquiry Officer acted as a presenting officer. He himself cross-examined the witnesses which is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Prakash Gaya Prasad v. State of M.P. and others, 2008 (4) M.P.L.J. 35 and the same was subsequently followed in the case of Ramesh Chand Rathore v. State of M.P. and others, 2010 (II) MPWN 80. It is further submitted that action of respondents is violation of Regulation 226 of the Police Regulations also because punishment has not been given as per the gravity of the offence. Here, harsh punishment has been given. Petitioner is serving on the lowest post i.e. Police Constable. Before passing the order of such extreme punishment, moderate punishment ought to have been given. Learned counsel for petitioner also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ganesh Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P. 2013(2) JLJ 185 = 2013 (2) MPLJ 402 to submit that harsh punishment is punishment of last resort and therefore, suitable calibration is required to be done in the case.

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that grounds raised by the petitioner in appeal, preferred by him, were not considered in correct perceptive and the same is contrary to the law laid down in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496.

5. Learned counsel for respondent/State opposed the prayer and while relying on the return filed, submitted that after departmental enquiry, petitioner was inflicted with the punishment. Petitioner remained absent for 58 days and on earlier occasions also, he was found absent, therefore, such punishment was inflicted. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for parties at length and perused the documents.

7. This is a case where petitioner, who happens to be a Police Constable and remained absent from his duty for a period of 58 days, is seeking calibration of punishment primarily. In other words, on quantum of punishment, petitioner intended to crave the indulgence of this Court. It is beyond doubt that petitioner