SRIKANTA DAS Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the parties and this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner.

(2.) PETITIONER assails the enquiry report Annexure -1 and the consequential order of dismissal from service passed by the Commandant. 102 Battalion R.A.F., C.R.P.F. On 21.02.1995, Annexure -2 and the concurring order of the appellate and the revisional authority, Annexures -3 and 4. It appears from the Articles of Charges that on 10.06.1994 while working as Constable Driver at C.R.P.F., Bhubaneswar petitioner did not obey the order of the authority and refused to proceed on duty at another station (Article II of the Charges) and that from 11.06.1994 afternoon to 08.07.1994 afternoon and again from 7 p.m. of 09.07.1994 to noon of 10.07.1994 he remained absent unauthorisedly (Article 1 of the Charges). In course of the enquiry, petitioner admitted his absence from 11.06.1994 to 08.07.1994 on the ground that he applied for C.L. on account of marriage ceremony of his sister and remained absent from the campus because of that function. He also admitted to have not abided by the order passed on 10.06.2004 for joining on duty and in that context he stated that he was sick and had the advise of the doctor to take bed rest for five weeks. He disputed to the allegation of unauthorised absence on 9th and 10th of July, 1994.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argues before us that so far as it relates to Charge No.1 (Article -1), the documents relied on in support of petitioners absence on 9th and 10th July, 1994 were not supplied to him and similarly the documents relied on in the context of Charge No.2 (Article -II) were also not supplied to him. The above conduct of the Department caused breach of the principle of natural justice as against the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order be quashed. Further contention of the petitioner is that absence of the petitioner, as admitted by him, is not whimsical but because of the marriage ceremony of his sister and non -obeying the command on 10.06.1994 due to illness was proved through the medical certificate produced by him at the time of enquiry and, therefore, the authority should have appreciated the same in proper perspective before taking a harsh view against the petitioner. Petitioner further states that in any event punishment imposed on him is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against him and, therefore, this Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction may interfere with that excessive punishment and to minimize the same. In support of the aforesaid first contention, petitioner relies on the ratio in the case of Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India, A.I.R 1988 S.C. 117.