PREM NARAYAN CHATURVEDI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by respondent No.3- Deputy Inspector General, SAF, Gwalior, dated 26.11.2005 vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of termination dated 15.9.1995 has been rejected.

(2.) The facts, which are not disputed, are that petitioner was recruited in the State Armed Forces as Constable on 5.3.1992. He was sent for training to APT, Indore, and during his stay at Indore he unauthorizedly absented himself from the training without seeking any permission or prior sanction of leave, as a result he was served with a show-cause notice on 19.5.1995 and thereafter vide order dated 15.9.1995 his services were terminated. Petitioner had filed an appeal against the said order of termination which too was rejected vide order dated 20.6.1996 and thereafter he had filed one original application before the State Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Gwalior, which was transferred to the High Court on closure of the said tribunal and was registered as W.P.No.3764/2003. This writ petition was decided vide order dated 26.4.2005 and this Court disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing. In pursuance to the orders passed by this Court, petitioner was provided an opportunity of hearing and thereafter impugned order, Annexure P/1, dated 26 th November, 2005 has been passed maintaining the order of punishment as was passed on 15.9.1995. Assailing these orders, present writ petition has been filed alleging that no enquiry was conducted, nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, and therefore, the order suffers from the principles of violation of natural justice and deserves to be set aside and be set aside as such.

(3.) Respondents have filed a detailed return and they have categorically mentioned in their return that after his recruitment, the petitioner was sent for training at Jabalpur from where he had absented without any notice or application and had turned up after 79 days. This period of 79 days was treated as a period of absence without pay from the duty under the Leave Rules. Again on 5.8.1994 he was sent to M.P. Training Course, Indore, from where he absented from the duty w.e.f. 17.5.1995 without any leave application and without obtaining any permission from the officer in-charge. When petitioner did not turn up for 30 days at the training center, Indore, his name was removed from the list of trainees on 15.6.1995 and papers were sent to the competent authority for suitable action. It is further submitted that entire story of wife's illness is concocted and is not supported by any documentary or other evidence. The contention of the petitioner that he was bitten by snake has also been refuted inasmuch as in support of this contention petitioner has produced a certificate from Sarpanch which has been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. It has been submitted that Sarpanch has no authority to issue any certificate in favour of the petitioner as is contained in Annexure P/4 showing that on 30th August, 1995 petitioner was bitten by a snake and he could be cured after continuous treatment, specially when no supporting medical prescriptions were enclosed. It is further submitted that in terms of the orders passed by this Court, opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner and notice dated 25.8.2005 was served on the petitioner, copy of acknowledgment of which has been enclosed with the return, and thereafter another notice was served vide Annexure R/3 dated 29.9.2005 and thereafter impugned order, Annexure P/1, has been passed. According to the respondents, they have complied with the provisions of Police Regulations and M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and it has been argued by learned counsel for the respondents that since petitioner was not confirmed and was still on probation, there is no illegality in the impugned orders terminating the petitioner from service for recurrent unauthorized absence from duty.