JAI KISHAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) We have heard the counsel on both the sides. The appellant was appointed as a Temporary Constable on September 9, 1982. After his undergoing training, he was posted to 7th Bn. The Central Services Temporary (Service) Rules, 1996 (for Short, 'the Rules') and other Rules as notified vide Delhi Administration's Notification No. 10/5/78 Home (P) Establishment dated December 17, 1980 are applicable to the service conditions of the appellant. He continued up to September 14, 1988 on which date the respondents issued and served an order under Rule 5(e) of the Rules terminating his services with the expiry of a period of one month from that date. The appellant when questioned the same in the Central Administrative Tribunal in C.A No. 1969/88, by order dated December 15, 1993 it had dismissed the petition and his review application also was dismissed. Thus, this appeal.

(3.) In the counter affidavit it was stated that from the perusal of his service record it was observed that the appellant has absented himself wilfully in unauthorised manner on 65 occasions from time at time during his entire service of six years and he was not found fit for issue of quasi permanency by various officers and was awarded punishment of censure and period of absence without pay after regular departmental enquiry. That the appellant was found habitual absentee and incorrigible type police employee and this could have set bad example to other employees of uniformed force. The appellant had not shown any capacity or devotion to his duties nor he performed the same efficiently. Therefore, his retention in service for more period was considered not desirable for the discipline of the force. Rule 5(e) of the Rules reads as follows: