DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a Class-IV employee in Civil Police. He has instituted this writ proceedings for quashing of the orders dated 30th August, 2012 and 24th April, 2013 passed by the third and second respondents respectively, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and his appeal against the dismissal order has been rejected respectively.

(2.) The essential facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Follower in Civil Police on 23rd March, 1998. In the year 2011, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the ground of absenteeism. A charge-sheet was served upon him on 21st October, 2011. The only charge mentioned in the charge-sheet was that without any leave he was absent from duty from 29th July, 2010 to 02nd May, 2011 i.e. for a period of more than 277 days. There was no other charge.

(3.) Earlier a preliminary enquiry was conducted, wherein prima facie the petitioner was found guilty. Thereupon a decision was taken to hold disciplinary proceedings against him and he was placed under suspension on 23rd April, 2011. The petitioner did not submit reply to the charge-sheet but in the enquiry he has produced one Dr. Vinay Katiyar, who had treated the petitioner during his illness. The defence of the petitioner was that due to illness he could not join earlier and when he was completely cured and fit, he offered his joining on 02nd May, 2011, he was permitted to join and allowed to work. The Enquiry Officer found that both the charges were proved and he was found to be guilty of the absenteeism. It was recorded that he was absent without applying for leave.