SURENDRASINH KESRISINH RAJ Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of punishment, Annexure 'A' to the petition as well as order of revisional authority which is at Annexure 'B' to the petition.

(2.) By order dated 28.8.1993, the petitioner was removed from service on the ground of remaining unauthorisedly absent for a long period of time. The aforesaid order was confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority which is at Annexure 'B' as well as order of revisional authority, which is at Annexure 'C'. The petitioner was appointed as an unarmed police constable in the police department. The petitioner was subjected to departmental inquiry on the ground that he remained absent for 29 times, the particulars of which are given in the charge sheet at Annexure 'A' page 11. For the period between August 1981 to April 1982, the petitioner remained absent for a considerable period from time to time. Initially the petitioner was discharged from service by an order dated 12.11.1982 but since the said order was passed without hearing him, the petitioner challenged the same by way of appeal on the ground that without hearing him, order simpliciter discharge could not have been passed against him. The appellate authority by its order dated 28.03.83 directed the disciplinary authority to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate order after holding appropriate inquiry. The petitioner thereafter was subjected to show cause notice on 19.06.83. The said notice was received by him 22.6.83 and he gave reply on 25.06.83. D.S.P. Bharuch came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not given any satisfactory reply to the said show cause notice and he has merely sent certificate of Civil Surgeon for the period between 20.04.82 and 28.04.83. The DSP came to the conclusion that the petitioner had remained absent in an unauthorised manner for a very long period, and accordingly, passed an order of dismissal. The said order was challenged before the appellate authority. The appellate authority by its order dated 23.3.1984 dismissed the said appeal. The appellate authority also found that the delinquent had already admitted the charges by reply dated 30.10.1982 [page 18 in the complication of this petition]. The appellate authority, Deputy Director General of Police, Vadodara Range has clearly stated in the order that the delinquent has already admitted his guilt in his reply dated 30.10.1982 and has stated that he do not want to proceed with the matter. Under the said circumstances, the appellate authority found that the order of DSP is just and proper. The appellate authority also found that the delinquent himself has admitted guilt and therefore there was no question of holding departmental inquiry. The aforesaid order was confirmed by the revisional authority by its order dated 22.10.1983 which is at Annexure 'C', page 21 of the compilation. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders by way of the present petition.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Rawal for the petitioner submitted that the order of punishment is contrary to law as no regular departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner for which he has relied upon rule 26 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. As per the said rule, no order for reducing, removing or dismissing a police officer shall be passed without giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him except in cases referred to in the provisions (a) to clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution. It is therefore submitted by Mr. Rawal that the order is question is bad as no regular departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner.