PARMESHWAR CHANDRASHEKHAR KUMBHAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, petitioner assails judgment and order dtd. 7/7/2022 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in Original Application (O.A.) No. 517 of 2021. The O.A. was instituted by petitioner challenging order dtd. 5/4/2019 imposing the punishment of dismissal from service, order dtd. 10/6/2020 rejecting appeal and order dtd. 30/3/2021 rejecting revision petition. By the judgment and order impugned before us, the Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the Original Application.

(2.) Petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman. He was appointed as a Police Constable from Ex-Serviceman category by order dtd. 19/6/2014 and joined the services on 20/6/2014. There is some history to his appointment. He was required to approach the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 143 of 2012 since he was not being appointed despite his selection. In pursuance of the Tribunal's order dtd. 12/12/2012, he was directed to be appointed. It is the petitioner's case that, despite the Tribunal's order, the Superintendent of Police, Solapur failed to appoint him, which led to fling of Contempt Application No. 78 of 2014 before the Tribunal. He came to be appointed only after Tribunal took cognizance of contempt proceedings. Petitioner contends that the Superintendent of Police was required to offer an explanation before the Tribunal for delay in implementation of the order by way of fling Affidavit-in-reply, which resulted in personal grudge against him on the part of Superintendent of Police, Solapur. That on this account, he was not sent for police constable training. It was alleged that petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from duty from 10/4/2015 to 30/9/2015. FIR was lodged against him on 30/9/2015 under Ss. 332, 353, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. He was placed under suspension by order dtd. 1/10/2015, which was revoked on 13/5/2016. Though he resumed duty on 2/6/2016, he again remained absent from duty from 3/6/2016 by submitting a sick memo.

(3.) Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against petitioner by issuance of Memorandum of Charge-sheet dtd. 30/6/2018 alleging four charges. In the first charge, it was alleged that petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent since 3/6/2016 and despite being directed to remain present for examination before the Medical Board on 3/10/2016, he refused to accept the communication. In the second charge, it was alleged that he was unau-thorisedly absent from 10/4/2015 to 30/9/2015, failed to report for examination before medical board and avoided to attend training. In the third charge, it was alleged that on being directed to remain present on 21/10/2016 to know the reason for his absence, he failed to remain present for such hearing, thereby disobeying the orders of the superior officers. In the fourth charge, it was alleged that upon being asked to remain present on 22/5/2018 for preliminary enquiry, petitioner failed to remain present.