RAMESH KUMAR DHURVE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-

(2.) Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in the Establishment of Madhya Pradesh Police. On 13/9/1997, petitioner while posted as Guard at Syndicate Bank did not turn up for duty, therefore, absence was recorded in Roj Namacha. Thereafter, between the period 13/9/1997 to 26/11/1997 for total 75 days, he remained absent without sanction of leave. Thereafter, streak of absence continued and he remained absence on duty between the period 13/9/1997 to 6/1/1999 for total 335 days on difference occasions, therefore, charge-sheet was issued by Superintendent of Police, Bhopal on 14/9/1999. One Officer, SDO(P), Bairagarh was appointed as Enquiry Officer.

(3.) It appears that after service of summons over the petitioner twice, he appeared before the Enquiry Officer. He abjured his guilt and participated in the enquiry. After detailenquiry, Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report before the authority concerned and found the charge of unauthorized absence of petitioner for total 335 days between the period 13/9/1997 to 6/1/1999 on different intervals, as proved. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 2/3/2001 and after giving opportunity of hearing, passed the impugned order dtd. 19/3/2001, by which the petitioner was removed / terminated from the service w.e.f. 19/3/2001. Said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Inspector General of Police, Bhopal in an appeal, but vide order dtd. 21/2/2002 said appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, mercy appeal preferred by petitioner before the Director General of Police also got dismissed vide order dtd. 26/10/2002, therefore, petitioner is before this Court.