(1.) THE Petitioner was appointed as constable in Uttar Pradesh Police in January, 1988. In the year 1993, he was posted at Aaraghar Police Post, Dehradun. On 15.04.1993 he fell ill and after entering his departure in the General Diary went to Doon Hospital for medical aid. This was done by him without taking permission from the Competent Authority. On 20.04.1993, he was put under suspension. Same day he reported his presence in the Police Lines but again on 24.04.1993 fell ill. It is alleged that on seeking verbal permission from Senior Superintendent of Police, the Petitioner alongwith his uncle went to Muzaffarnagar for treatment. He also apprised the Ginti Moharrir and General Diary Munshi of his departure. The Petitioner claimed that he remained under treatment of T.B. Officer, District T.B. Clinic and District Hospital Muzaffarnagar from 24.05.1993 to 07.11.1993 and reported back on duty in the Police Lines, Dehradun on 08.11.1993. However, the Petitioner again went back to Muzaffarnagar to continue with the earlier treatment and remained there till 08.05.1995. During this period, he received a notice dated 03.08.1993 from the department which was replied by him vide letter dated 06.09.1993. It is pleaded that despite knowing about the Petitioner's illness, the Respondents conducted a preliminary inquiry through the then Circle Officer (City) Dehradun and on the basis thereof, he was charged for unauthorized absence from duty. Neither any charge sheet was served on him nor proper opportunity was given to him to question the veracity of the departmental evidence or project his own defence; rather in an absolutely unilateral and exparte manner, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun passed the dismissal order on 15.06.1995. Departmental appeal filed by the Petitioner was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Petitioner filed a Claim Petition No. 95 -T -02, before the Public Services Tribunal Uttarakhand at Dehradun, which was also dismissed on 11.06.2003. Present petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 11.06.2003 as well as against the orders passed by the Departmental Authorities.
(2.) THE Respondents came up with the case that the Petitioner wilfully absented from his duties from 15.04.1993 and came back on 20.04.1993 and recorded his joining in the General Diary. During that period, Police Party came from Muzaffarnagar and it was informed that at the time of his posting in District Muzaffarnagar , the Petitioner was involved in sale and purchase of illegal vehicles and cases for several offences were registered against him in the Police Station of Delhi. On 15.04.1993, when the Delhi Police arrived at Police out post Aaraghar, Dehradun for investigation, the Petitioner absented same day. On 20.04.1993 the Petitioner was suspended on the ground that he proceeded on leave without information and had purchased a stolen car. The Petitioner wanted to join the services on 20.04.1993 as would be apparent from the General Diary. Again on 24.04.1993, the Petitioner absented from duty and continued to remain absent till 17.11.1993. On 20.11.1993 he again absented himself from duties and remained absent until he was removed from service. The Respondents have further submitted that as there is a regular Police Hospital in Dehradun where Petitioner avoided taking treatment and instead of same went to Muzaffarnagar. Oral permission taken by the Petitioner from S.S.P. Dehradun has also been denied by the Respondents. There is no supportive material on record on which basis it can be said that such permission was ever granted to him by the S.S.P. Dehradun. Notice dated 03.08.1993 from the Department was received by him at his address which was replied by him vide letter dated 06.09.1993. At no point of time did the Petitioner notify the department about any change in his address and despite receipt of the said notice the Petitioner did not associate himself with the preliminary enquiry proceedings. Charge sheet was also sent to him at his last known address but he avoided the service. His family members consisting of his mother and wife showed their ignorance about his whereabouts and did not receive the notice sent to him. When the notice was not received by any of the family members of the Petitioner, the same was served by affixation at his residential house Village Saidpur. After completion of departmental enquiry, the punishing authority sent final notice to him on 10.05.1995 alongwith enquiry report asking him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. This notice was served upon him on 16.05.1995. The Petitioner replied the same on 23.05.1995. In his reply, reason shown for absence was that he was busy in Delhi in doing pairvi in cases in which he was charged. The punishing authority after considering his reply as well as official record passed punishment order on 15.06.1995.
(3.) IT is not disputed that Petitioner remained absent for a long period for which he was charge sheeted. It is also not disputed that such absence was unauthorized. Record clearly shows that Petitioner remained absent from 24.04.1993 to 07.11.1993 and again from 20.11.1993 to 15.06.1995, when he was removed from service. Record also shows that Petitioner did not get his leave sanctioned from Competent Authority. Regarding oral permission, there is no material on record on which basis it can be said that oral permission for leave was ever granted to him by the S.S.P. Dehradun. In reply to final notice dated 16.05.1995, the Petitioner submitted that he was busy in Delhi and was doing pairvi in cases pending before Delhi Courts. Another stand was taken by the Petitioner was that he was unwell and was taking treatment in Muzaffarnagar . Thus, different stand was taken by him at different stages. The punishing authority rightly did not find the explanation of the Petitioner as satisfactory. The submission of learned Senior Counsel that Petitioner was not served properly, is not correct in view of the fact that when notice was sent to him by messenger, his family members consisting of his mother and wife showed their ignorance about his whereabouts and refused to take notice. The said notice was affixed on his residential address i.e. at his notified address. Thus, the said service is deemed to be sufficient. On completion of departmental evidence another notice dated 07.02.1995 was sent to him on the same residential address which was produced before the Tribunal by the Petitioner himself. This notice apprised him of the stage of enquiry proceedings and offered him due opportunity to put up his case. Considering all these facts, we find that reasonable opportunity to defend his case was given to the Petitioner and there is no violation of rules in this regard. Another argument of Shri Sharad Sharma that as the Petitioner was exonerated from the criminal charges, he ought to be provided with the benefit of the same, has no legs to stand in view of the fact that Petitioner was removed from service for different charge i.e. for unauthorized absence from duties.