DIGVIJAI CHAUBE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. N. Gupta, J. The petitioner was a constable in the U. P. Pradeshik Armed Constabulary (In short PAC ). Sri Sharda Prasad Srivastava, the Assistant Comman dant of PAC, served on the petitioner a chargesheet on 15-12- 1984 which contained four charges. The first charge was to the effect that the petitioner had gone on sanc tioned casual leave on 17-4-1983 and he was required to return on 24-4-1983. The petitioner was also instructed that he would not extend the leave nor would absent nor would get admitted in the hospital. The second charge was that the petitioner ab sented with effect from 24-4-1983 to 29-4-1984 without any information or sanction of leave and thus, he remained absent for 372 days without getting himself admitted or cheked up in a Police Hospital and thereby, committed breach of Paras 382 and 383 of U. P. Police Regulations. The third charge was to the effect that in spite of the fact that the petitioner was served with an order to proceed to Assam and to report for duty but he absented on the false pretext of illness. The last charge was that the petitioner did not come back to his duty on the false pretext of being unwell. Against this char gesheet, the petitioner submitted his writ ten explanation. The Assistant Comman dant held regular disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner who was given reasonable opportunity for defending him self. The inquiry officer submitted his report dated 21-5-1995. Thereafter, Sri Hari Raj Singh, Commandant of Battalion, served a show cause notice on the petitioner against which petitioner submitted his written ex planation. Ultimately, the Commandant of the Battalion passed an order dated 24-9-1985 dismissing the petitioner from service. The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner, against the said dismissal order, was also dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner preferred a claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal which dismissed the same on 24-6-1992 against which this writ petition has been preferred.

(3.) THE Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact which has not been challenged on behalf of the State that the Commandant or the Assistant Commandant has not signed the Schedule Statement. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the aforesaid two officers had not signed the Schedule Statement, they could not func tion and discharge their duties and, there fore, the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner by the Commandant is bad in law. THE Scheduled Statement is not in the nature of oath which is a condition prece dent in many cases for assumption of the office. It is merely a statement binding the members of Pradeshik Armed Constabulary that they will not be entitled to get dis charged at their own request and that the services shall come to an end when the force or the battalion is liquidated. Since the Commandant and Assistant Commandant are appointed by the State Government as provided under Section 2 (1) of the Act and as they were so appointed, they could very well discharge the function of their respec tive offices in spite of the fact that they had not signed the Schedule Statement. It is merely an irregularity which does not go to root of the matter. In view of this, I agree with the Tribunal that non-signing of the Schedule Statement by the Assistant Com mandant and Commandant do not attach any disability in functioning as such.