SALIMUDDIN KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition filed in the year 2007 has come up for admission today. The petitioner, a police constable has assailed the order dated 19.11.2005 by which the appropriate authority has declined to pay full salary to the petitioner for a period of 595 days when according to the respondents he has remained absent from duty without prior obtaining permission and sanction of leave. In addition to this the petitioner has challenged the order of minor penalty awarded against the petitioner by which his scale was reduced to one year and the appellate and revisional order has been challenged in this petition. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, he was initially appointed as constable on 15.5.95. On 20.12.2000 he fell ill and went to hospital for treatment. He remain ill for a long period. However a criminal case was registered against the petitioner as case crime no.441 of 2000 u/s 307 IPC and case crime no.442 of 2000 u/s 25 Arms Act, at P.S. Sasni, district Hathras. Thus the petitioner had to surrender before the competent court in January, 2001. He was sent to Jail and ultimately on7.3.2001 he was enlarged on bail. However, the petitioner was suspended on 16.1.2001 by the concerned Superintendent of Police. Charge sheet was issued against him on 16/17.7.03 to which he has replied. The enquiry has resulted in awarding minor penalty vide order dated 19.11.2005. The appeal was preferred which was dismissed on 27.5.2006. Similarly petitioner's revision was also dismissed on 25.9.2006 compelling the petitioner to file the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order on several grounds that he had given sufficient explanation regarding his absence from duty. The medical certificates and medical boar's opinion etc. were submitted but the same were ignored. Since the petitioner was lodged in a false criminal case, he was forced to remain out of duty. Under compelling circumstances which have been spelt out in the writ petition and in the memo of appeal and revision, he could not resume charge and discharge the functions and duties of the constable. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the motion and drawn attention of the Court to various paras of the counter affidavit. According to him, the petitioner was in fact joined service in the year 1995 and within a short period of 5 years of rendering service, he had remained absent from duty for 595 days and this absence has to be taken into account and cannot be exempted. THIS period cannot be regularised as per provisions contained in the Financial Handbook Vol.II to IV, subsidiary rules and leave rules admissible to police personnel. Moreover, it was a case of misconduct also for which appropriate procedure has been followed after issuing a charge shhet and receiving reply and conducting enquiry appropriate order has been passed. His appeal and revision has rightly been rejected by the appropriate authority. It emerges from the record that the petitioner while posted in district Ghaziabad, the petitioner had absented himself from duty for the period from 20/21.12.2000 to 10.3.2001, from 11.3.2001 to 13.3.2001 and from 19.3.2001 to 21.3.2001 and thereafter when he was posted at Etawah, he had remained absent from duty from 10.4.2001 to 10.5.2001 and 26.5.2001 to 24.9.2002. The total comes to 595 days. A preliminary enquiry was conducted against the petitioner as has been provided under the enquiry and punishment rules, 1991 admissible to police personnel. Moreover, the petitioner was involved in two criminal cases details of which have been in the forgoing para. The Court has also gone through the charge sheet reply submitted by the petitioner and the order of punishment and order passed by appellate authority and revisional authority. The enquiry has resulted in awarding minor penalty for which appropriate procedure has been followed. Looking to the gravity of charges, a minor penalty has been awarded against the petitioner which appears to be lenient. In the opinion of the Court a lenient view has been taken in the matter as during a short period of 5 years working as constable, the petitioner had absented himself from duty for 595 days. There is no error of procedure. The appointing authority has following the principles of natural justice in holding the enquiry. Accordingly, no interference is required. The writ petition is dismissed.