BHAGWAN LAL ARYA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The above appeal was filed against the final judgment/order dated 16-3-2002 passed by the High Court of Delhi in C.W. P. No. 6261 of 1998. The main issue relates to the alleged unauthorised absence for 2 months and 8 days for which penalty of removal from service was imposed by the respondents on the appellant.

(3.) The appellant was recruited as a Constable in Delhi Police. While undergoing the prescribed training the appellant fell down on the parade ground on 7-10-1994. Thereupon, he was sent to police dispensary as ordered by the Chief Drill Inspector of the parade. Since his condition did not improve, his relative took him to his home town in Gwalior. He remained under treatment of Government Doctors there and sent applications for leave on medical grounds supported with the medical certificate from competent medical authorities in accordance with the leave rules. The competent police authority passed an order on 16-1-1995 sanctioning leave without pay for the period of his illness from 7-10-1994 to 14-12-1994 as no other leave was due to him. According to the appellant since the competent authority had granted the leave, the question of issuing any charge sheet subsequently for unauthorised absence for the same period would not arise. On 15-11-1994, notice of termination from service was issued stating that his services shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date notice is received by the appellant. The appellant resumed duty on 15-12-1994 after submitting fitness certificate from Government dispensary, Gwalior, where he had taken treatment. The services of the appellant were terminated with effect from 31-12-1994 under Rule 5 of clause (1) of the Temporary Service Rules. On 16-1-1995, the competent authority sanctioned leave without pay for his illness from 7-10-1994 to 14-12-1994 after the receipt of the termination order. The appellant made representation for reinstatement. After a gap of more than 4 months , the Commissioner of Police reinstated him in service forthwith with the provision that intervening period from 1-1-1995 till he was reinstated will be decided at the time of finalisation of his disciplinary enquiry. The appellant retained service after reinstatement order dated 25-5-1995. However, he again fell ill and was on leave for several days on medical grounds and was granted leave by the respondents. On 24-7-1995, disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the appellant under Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1980). The disciplinary enquiry officer served a charge sheet dated 24-2-1996 on the appellant. The enquiry officer submitted his findings on 22-4-1996. The enquiry officer concluded that acts of the appellant are highly reprehensible and untenable and, therefore, the charge against him stands fully proved. On 25-6-1996, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service on the appellant. The appellant submitted his appeal on 5-7-1996 which was rejected by the 2nd respondent herein. The appellant submitted a fresh revision and the mercy petition which were rejected on 2-6-1997 and 27-6-1998 respectively. The appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi which also dismissed the O.A. No. 1195 of 1998. Thereupon the appellant filed the writ petition in the High Court which was also dismissed. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred this Special Leave Petition/Appeal.