Judgment / Order

Reportable

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 30.06.2003 passed by the learned Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner, cum Appellate Authority, bearing Serial No. A-7B Range/Up/Ganga/2003/4591-93, whereby the Appellate Authority, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, upheld the order dated 24.02.2003 passed by the learned Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar, cum Disciplinary Authority, bearing Serial No. 708_12. By the said order, the petitioner was held guilty of remaining absent from duty from 08.03.2002 to 18.03.2002 without obtaining leave and was consequently inflicted with the penalty of dismissal from State service. The petitioner was further granted leave without pay for a period of 10 days, i.e., from 08.03.2002 to 18.03.2002, in respect of the aforesaid period of absence.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was serving as a Constable in the Rajasthan Police and was posted at the Police Line, Sri Ganganagar, in the year 2002. During the said period, he was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1958'), along with the statements of allegations.

2.1 The allegation levelled against the petitioner was that, while he had been assigned duty as a guard in the B.I. Guard on 08.03.2002, he remained absent from duty without obtaining prior leave for a period of 10 days, i.e., up to 18.03.2002. It was further alleged that the petitioner had been assigned the duty of protecting Government property in the office. The charge-sheet further stated that, prior thereto, the petitioner had remained absent on 51 occasions without obtaining leave and without giving prior information and, therefore, he was alleged to be a habitual absentee.

2.2 Thereafter, the petitioner was ordered to be inquired into by the respondent No. 3, and an Inquiry Officer was appointed for conducting the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer summoned the petitioner to participate in the inquiry proceedings. During the inquiry, Shri Inder Singh was appointed as the petitioner's representative. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer, after recording the evidence produced by both sides, submitted his inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority on 30.12.2002.

2.3 During the course of the inquiry, the prosecution produced four witnesses in support of its case. On the other hand, the petitioner submitted his written arguments and did not produce any witness in his defense. On the basis of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses and the material available on record, the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority.

2.4 Subsequently, on the basis of the said inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice along with this notice, inquiry report was also given to the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not file the reply of the show cause notice in the stipulated time. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded ex-parte and passed an order dated 24.02.2003, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from the service.

2.5 Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.02.2003, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Rule 30 of the Rules, 1958. However, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.06.2003.

3. Hence, being aggrieved by the orders dated 24.02.2003 and 30.06.2003, the petitioner has preferred the present civil writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are non-speaking, contrary to the provisions of the Rules, 1958, and have been passed without proper consideration of the grounds raised by the petitioner. It was contended that the di