SABATSINH MANSINH PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent No.1 dated 05.07.2006, vide which, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 03.03.2004, vide which, his appeal against the dismissal has been declined by the Director General of Police. He has also challenged the Revisional Order which has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a constable on 21.11.1983 in the Police Department. He served as constable for 15 years in Navsari Town Police Station. Thereafter, he was transferred to Valsad District. Before dismissal, he has served for four years in Chota-Udepur Police Station as Police Constable. Throughout his career, there was not even a single allegation made against him or any act of indiscipline. On 08.09.2003, the petitioner received a show-cause notice from the respondent No.2, asking him why he should not be removed from the post of the Constable. The allegation made against him in the said notice was that he was absent in service from 26.05.2001 to 03.07.2001 i.e. for a period of 40 days. The petitioner failed to respond this notice, despite sufficient time having been granted. Ultimately, the petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 21.10.2003. Appeal and Revision against this order was also dismissed. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to set aside the order of dismissal and subsequent orders. Thereafter, respondents filed an Affidavit-in- Reply stating that the petitioner is a habitual absentee. He has absented for 25 times out of which seven punishments have been awarded to him. He has failed to give any explanation for his absence for a period of 40 days and in absence of any defense, the order of dismissal is required to be upheld.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the absence of the petitioner was due to acute head ache (Chronic Vertigo) from which the petitioner was suffering at the relevant point of time. It is further submitted that the daughter of the petitioner expired during pendency of this petition and the petitioner could not furnish his defense before the Inquiry Officer. Under these circumstances, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the guilt of the petitioner. While relying upon these submissions, learned counsel has prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal.