SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Satish Kumar is before this Court for quashing the impugned orders dated 31.12.2013, 27.5.2014 and 1.8.2014 passed by respondent nos.5, 4 and 3 respectively.

(2.) As per record, this much is reflected that the petitioner was serving as Constable in Civil Police. In the year 2013, when the petitioner was posted at Moradabad Anubhag, Moradabad, he was deputed in the night duty at quarter guard and he was also directed to be present at Pared but he was not present at Pared and without taking any permission, the petitioner unauthorized absented from 1.3.2013 to 15.5.2013 (76 days) without any information and after 76 days unauthorized absent, he returned back. By the impugned order dated 31.12.2013 passed by respondent no.4, the petitioner was awarded punishment of major penalty of dismissal from services under Rule 4 (1) (a) (i) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 on the ground of unauthorised absent of 76 days. Against the aforesaid order, he filed an appeal before respondent no.3 and the said appeal was dismissed on 25.7.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before respondent no.2 and the said revision was also dismissed on 1.8.2014.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the impugned order the opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner. The enquiry proceedings were also not conducted in proper manner. The petitioner was suffering from Jaundice and he was under treatment at Kendriya Police Hospital, Moradabad and the doctor advised him to take complete bed rest on account of this, the petitioner could not join his duties. From time to time the petitioner informed about his ailment to the higher police official, but the respondents had not considered the same and passed the impugned order ex-parte without giving opportunity to the petitioner.