PRAKASH SINHA Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dtd. 3/12/2014 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Superintendent of Police, North Bastar Kanker/respondent No. 4 by which the services of the petitioner have been terminated treating the period from 1/12/2011 till issuance of punishment order as unauthorized absence. The petitioner has also challenged appellate order dtd. 21/3/2017 (Annexure - P/2) passed by the Inspector General of Police/Respondent No. 3 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected and order dtd. 5/4/2018 (Anneuxre - P/3) which has been communicated to the petitioner on 4/3/2022 passed by the Director General of Police by which the Mercy Appeal filed by the petitioner has also been rejected.

(2.) The facts reflected from records are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable on 13/2/1992 and due to ill health/medical issues of his wife as well as his mental problem (severe headache/brain tumor) he could not attend the duty from 1/12/2011 till date of issuance of charge sheet dtd. 13/7/2012. The petitioner was charge sheeted for unauthorized absent from duty and violation of General Condition of Service as prescribed in para 64 of the Police Regulation. The petitioner was directed to submit explanation within 7 days, but he could not submit the same proper reply to the charge-sheet though he has informed to the authority with regard to medical condition of his wife as well as his medical condition as he is suffering from brain tumor. The departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and the disciplinary authority/respondent No. 4 conducted the department enquiry ex-parte wherein all the charges levelled against the petitioner have been found proved.

(3.) It has been contended by the petitioner that copy of inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner and while conducting exparte departmental enquiry as well as imposition of punishment, they ought to have verified the facts whether the alleged unauthorized absent w.e.f. 1/12/2011 till 13/7/2012 i.e. about 7 months, is willfully or bonafide and if the same is due to ill-health or medical treatment, it should not be held that the petitioner is guilty of unauthorized absent. However, the authority did not examine the case of the petitioner from the said aspect. He would further submit that the entire disciplinary proceeding has been conducted without giving him proper opportunity of hearing and statements of the witnesses have been recorded in his absence and no opportunity to cross examine the witness has been given to the petitioner. It has been further contended that the respondents have not appointed Presenting Officer and the Inquiry Officer has acted as prosecutor and judge which is illegality, as such, entire inquiry proceedings and consequent punishment orders deserves to be set aside on account of violation of principle of natural justice as well as violation of the statutory rules as Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 which mandatorly provides for appointment of Presenting Officer.