IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

WRIT PETITION No. 13184 of 2021

DHARU SINGH BHEEL

Versus

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Shri Umesh Kumar Singh Chauhan - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri B.M.Patel- GA for the respondents/State.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESERVED ON: 07/01/2026

ORDER PASSED ON: 12/01/2026

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O R D E R

Petitioner has filed this writ petition being aggrieved by order dated

5/1/2020 (Annexure P/1), whereby, he was dismissed from service on account of misconduct, of remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty, was held established in departmental enquiry. He has also challenged the order dated 2/6/2020 (Annexure P/2), 8/12/2020 (Annexure P/3) & 23/1/2021 (Annexure P/10), whereby, his appeal, mercy appeal and review application were rejected by the respective authorities. The petitioner has also prayed

for his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.

2. Facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable vide order dated 29/4/2011 and was posted

in Police Line, Shivpuri.

3. It is alleged against the petitioner that he was sent for training in 68^th Basic Training Course held at Tighara, Gwalior during the year 2015-16. During training, he absented himself w.e.f. the night of 30^th October, 2015

without any intimation to his superiors. Because of his absence, he was deputed back to his unit at Shivpuri on 2/1/2016. Notices were issued to him on 6/4/2016, 27/4/2016, 24/5/2026, 16/8/2016 & 27/10/2016 asking him to report on duty immediately. However, even though the said notices were received by him or his family members, the petitioner did not report on duty nor sent any intimation regarding his absence.

4. Looking to the continued long absence of the petitioner, respondent no.4 directed for a preliminary enquiry on 17/1/2017. The preliminary enquiry report was submitted on 27/6/2017, whereby, it was reported that the petitioner is absent unauthorizedly w.e.f. 30/10/2015 without any intimation and permission. Again the petitioner absented himself from duty for a period of 68 days from 7/4/2018 to 11/6/2018.

5. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 31/1/2019 (Annexure R/1), whereby, following three charges were levelled against him:-

“1-

cqfj;knh izf'k{k.k ds nkSjku izf'k{k.k laLFkku fr?kjk ls fnukad

30@10@2015 ls yxkrkj vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k vuqifLFkfr esa izf'k{k.k ls i`Fkd dj mldh ewy bdkbZ iqfyl ykbZu ftyk f'koiqjh ds fy, jokuk fd;s tkus ij iqfyl ykbZu esa vken u nrs s gq, fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds fnukad 30@10@2015 ls 02@11@2017 rd 734 fnol vuqifLFkr ,oa iqfyl ykbZu f'koiqjh ls fnukad 10@04@2018 ls 11@06@2018 rd 63 fnol vuqifLFkr dqy feykdj 797 fnol fcuk lwpuk ds vukf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkr jgdj drZO; ds izfr ykijokgh]

mnklhurk ,oa LoPNkpkfjrk iznf'kZr djuk A

2-

pkj cku cqfupknh izf'k{k.k iw.kZ djus ds volj iznku djus mijkar Hkh izfr{k.k iw.kZ u dj lsok ds izfr v:fp iznf'kZr dj lsok ds v;ksX; gksuk A

3-

fcuk lwpuk ds vukf/kd`r :i ls ckj ckj vuqifLFkr gksdj vuq'kklughurk iznf'kZr djuk A”

6. As per respondents, petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet but same was not found satisfactory. However, the petitioner disputes that he submitted reply to the charge-sheet. The Sub Divisional Officer (Police) was appointed as enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry. The enquiry commenced on 18/7/2019. On being asked, the petitioner admitted all the three charges vide his application dated 18/7/2019 (Annexure R/2). Accordingly, the enquiry officer concluded the enquiry and submitted the report before respondent no.4.

7. The respondent no.4 asked the petitioner to submit his explanation vide memo dated 22/7/20919 and reminders thereof were given on 17/8/2019 & 3/10/2019. It