MAAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of this writ petition challenges the judgment of the CentralAdministrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 13/05/1998 in O.A. No. 99 of 1993 wherein he had challenged the issuance ofcharge-sheet dated 11/11/1991 and the disciplinary authority's orderdated 13/03/1992 dismissing him from the police service as also challengesthe appellate authority's order dated 18/09/1992 rejecting his appeal.

(2.) The case before the Tribunal was that the petitioner was departmentallyproceeded against on the charge that he proceeded to avail three days' medical restwith effect from 31/01/1990 and was due back on 2/02/1990 whenhe again produced another certificate for seven days further medical rest andproceeded to avail of the same with effect from 9/02/1990. He was due backon 16/02/1990 but did not resume duties, as such was marked absent on 17/02/1990. It is further stated in the charge-sheet that inspite of absenteenotice'served at his home address vide office letter dated 28/03/1990, heneither reported for duty nor sent any intimation. The Enquiry Officer's report statedthat he was sent summons but inspite of reminders at his office and home address,he did not join departmental inquiry. Thereafter, summons of allegations along withlist of witnesses and documents were sent to his home address through specialmessenger, which he acknowledged receipt of, but did not submit reply to thesummary of allegations and also did not join the departmental inquiry proceedings.After obtaining permission from Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police to takeex parte proceedings against the petitioner, ex parte proceedings were commencedagainst him and despite giving him full opportunity to participate in the proceedings,the petitioner did not do so. The Enquiry Officer examined various witnesses andreturned a finding that the charge of unauthorised absence against the petitioner wasestablished beyond any shadow of doubt. The findings of the Enquiry Officer wereconveyed to the petitioner on 5/01/1992 and reply thereto was submitted byhim on 10/02/1992.

(3.) After considering his reply and going through the material on record thedisciplinary authority accepted the Enquiry Officer's report holding the petitioner tobe an incorrigible type of person, whose presence in police force would affectdiscipline in the force and instigate other members of the force to be indisciplined.The disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 1 3/02/1992 and further directed that the period of absence from 17/02/1990 till 13/03/1992 betreated as "leave without pay". The petitioner filed anappeal against the order of the, disciplinary authority where he was granted apersonal hearing, but, despite two opportunities did not avail of the same. Theappellate authority considering the grounds taken in the appeal, rejected the appealby order dated 18/09/1992. Before the Tribunal when the case came upfor hearing on various occasions none appeared for the petitioner. Consequently, theTribunal proceeded to dispose of the matter after hearing proxy counsel and perusingthe material on record.