CHAUHAN DHULSINH CHATURSINH Vs. DISTRICT SUPRINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of mandamus for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 16/6/1992, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from the service. He has also sought relief of reinstatement in service with immediate effect with full back wages, continuity of service and all other incidental benefits.

(2.) . The petitioner was recruited in the Police Department in the year 1971 on the post of Police Constable (Unarmed). While in service on 2/12/1988 petitioner proceeded on leave for a period of 60 days with due permission of the superior officers. He was required to report back on duty on 2/1/1989. However, he reported on the duty only on 22/10/1989. During the period he had remained absent without leave the department had served with three notices calling upon him to report on duty immediately. However, the petitioner did not respond to these notices and reported on duty only on 22/10/1989. It is averred by the petitioner in the petition that he had fallen ill with serious ailment after he proceeded on leave and he was almost confined to bed and he was unable to send any intimation or information to the Department regarding his illness and his inability to join the service. According to the petitioner, at the time he reported back on duty on 22/10/1989 he produced all the medical certificates together with purchase bills of the medicines required for his treatment before his superior officer Mrs. Gita Johri, but she refused to look into them solely on the ground that since a criminal proceeding against the petitioner was pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Prantij for committing offence u/S. 145 (3) of the Bombay Police Act, the matter was sub-judice. It may incidentally be noted that for remaining absent without authority the petitioner was prosecuted in the Court of the aforesaid learned Magistrate for committing offence u/S. 145(3) of the Bombay Police Act and in that proceeding he was ultimately convicted by the learned Magistrate vide judgment and order dated 30/7/1991. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100.00 and in default he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Having been aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner approached the Sessions Court, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar by way of Criminal Revision Application No. 38 of 1991. The same was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 2/11/ . It also appears from the record of this petition that against the judgment of both the lower Courts the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Special Criminal Application No. 1795 of 1991 and the same was rejected by this Court.

(3.) . Placing reliance on the judgments of the learned Magistrate and also the Court of Sessions and the ultimate order passed by this Court holding the petitioner guilty of the offence u/S. 145 (3) of the Bombay Police Act, respondent no. 1 dismissed the petitioner from service for the misconduct of remaining absent without authority for 293 days i.e. from 2/1/1989 till 22/10/1989, since in the opinion of respondent no. 1 the misconduct alleged against the petitioner was of serious nature. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court seeking reliefs already stated above.