HARIKESH MANI TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

(2.) The petitioner has approached this court assailing punishment orders as well as other orders which have been passed consequent to his being punished for being absent from duty w.e.f. 18/7/2003 to 25/9/2003. He is working on the post of a constable in the PAC, and while working in the 35th Battalion PAC remained absent unauthorisedly for 69 days for which he was charge-sheeted on 29/8/2003 on the charge that he had committed misconduct under Rule 14(1) Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) rules 1991. The petitioner appeared before the inquiry officer who recorded his statement and several witnesses were also examined. The Inquiry officer concluded the enquiry and submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 13/1/04 recommending punishment of removal from service. The disciplinary authority did not concur with the enquiry report and remanded the enquiry to be conducted afresh.

(3.) The fresh enquiry was conducted by another enquiry officer who submitted his inquiry report On 3/7/2004 recommending dismissal from service. It has further been submitted that without issuing any show cause notice petitioner was dismissed from service by means of order dtd. 26/8/2004 by the Commandant 35th Battalion PAC.