SOBARAN SINGH DADORIA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition the petitioner has challenged his order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure A -4 dated 11 -12 -1996 and affirmed by Appellate Authority vide Annexure A -5 dated 22 -1 -1997. The petitioner has also assailed the order passed by the Director General of Police dated 12 -9 -4997 by which the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority has been diluted and in compliance of order of dismissal, the order retiring the petitioner compulsorily, has been passed.

(2.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, for a minor misconduct, as he remained absent for five days w.e.f. 4 -6 -1996 to 8 -6 -1996, he was subjected to departmental enquiry and ultimately his, services were dismissed, which was modified into order of compulsory retirement as passed by the Director General of Police. It has been put forth by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the charge -sheet was issued by Additional Superintendent of Police who was not competent to issue it and therefore the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the charges cannot be allowed to remain stand. The argument though at the first, blush appears to be quite attractive, however, on deeper scrutiny, found to be devoid of any substance. The petitioner failed to demonstrate how he is prejudiced. It is no more in dispute that the order of dismissal was passed by the competent authority i.e. Superintendent of Police and if that is the position, according to me, merely the charge -sheet was issued by Additional Superintendent of Police, since it had not prejudiced the petitioner, in any manner, the entire enquiry proceedings cannot be quashed.

(3.) A bare perusal of the reply, which was filed by the petitioner against the show cause, does reveal that on account of illness, the petitioner remained absent. In support of his contention he has also filed the requisite medical certificate, the copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure D -2. Since there is no rebuttal, of this document and it is not, the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not remain ill, therefore according to me, he had made out a case for remaining absent. Thus, the only mistake which he had committed is that without submitting any application of leave, he went on leave. On this ground alone, according to me, the order of punishment retiring him compulsorily is shockingly disproportionate.