KALI RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to challenge the judgment and orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 24th December, 1997 in R.A. No. 294 of 1997 in O.A. No. 1473 of 1992 whereby the Tribunal dismissed his application after giving a reasoned order.

(2.) The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that he impugned the disciplinary proceedings held against him under Section 21 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 in which the impugned order dated 12th August, 1971 had been passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the petitioner from service, was bad on the ground that Mr. Puran Singh, Inspector, who had conducted the inquiry against the petitioner, had submitted his findings on 4th May, 1991 holding him guilty of the charges of willful absence from duty, was arbitrary and that the petitioner had not been given a reasonable opportunity to defend his case. It was submitted that from the record it is evident that after the submission of the Enquiry Officer's report on 4th May, 1991, the petitioner was allowed to give written statement in defence on 28th May, 1991 when he was also examined by the Enquiry Officer which is, on the face of it, illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal, after going through the record, was satisfied that the date when the finding had been submitted by Mr. Puran Singh, Inspector is 4th June, 1991 and not 4th May. 199). That being so, the dale of the findings of the Enquiry officer stated as 4th May, 1991 in the impugned order appears to be an inadvertent mistake not consistent with the original records and that by itself cannot assist the petitioner in his grievance that principles of natural justice had been violated. Therefore, the main contention of the petitioner that the findings had been recorded by the Enquiry Officer prior to his defence statement given hy the petitioner, stood rejected. The charge against the petitioner, as framed, was that he was Head Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police and did not turn up for duty w.e.f. 29th June, 1990. Absentee notices were sent to his home address but the notices were received back with the report that "the addressee is not available at the given address". Accordingly, the petitioner had been unauthorisedly absent for a period of 86 days 20 hours and 38 minutes willfully. It was alleged that the petitioner remained absent w.e.f. 2nd November, 1990 to 31st January, 1991. The stand of the petitioner was that the absence from duty was on account of illness and that the medical certificates submitted were not taken into consideration. The Enquiry Officer found the charges against the petitioner proved and the disciplinary authority, after complying with the formalities, was pleased to dismiss the petitioner from service by order dated 12th August, 1991. The Tribunal held that the medical certificates submilled by the petitioner were taken into consideration and that there was no lapse in the procedure followed in the inquiry. Accordingly, basing its judgment on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Others v. Ashok Kamar Singh and Others 1996(1) SLR 291 as also State of Tamil Nadu v. S. Subramaniam, AIR 1996 SC 1232, the Tribunal found no justification in interfering with he orders under challenge and, therefore, dismissed the original application by order dated 8th October, 1997. Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner moved this Court by way of the instant petition wherein the petitioner has sought to challenge the impugned order of the Tribunal on various grounds. However, the only ground but forth before us is that he is covered by the judgment in State of Punjab & Others v. Bakshish Singh, JT 1998(7) SC 142 where, the petitioner claims, the Supreme Court has affirmed the findings of the first appellate Court which, in turn, held that absence from duty having been regularised as "leave without pay" automatically set at naught the order of dismissal. Learned counsel further argued that impliedly the judgment in Bakshish Singh's case overrules an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Harihar Gopal, 1969 SLR 274 wherein the Supreme Court held otherwise.

(3.) We have given our careful consideration to the contentions raised. The Supreme Court in Harihar Gopal's case held in no uncertain terms that: