NAND KISHORE SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL CUM INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was a police constable, is aggrieved by the order of termination of his service dated 3.7.1985, as confirmed in appeal and the memorandum against which has also been rejected.

(2.) The ground for his dismissal is his unauthorized absence of 90 days. On 29.11.1982, the petitioner proceeded on earned leave for 40 days valid till 8.1.1983. On 6.1.1983 he represented for extension of leave on the ground that the construction of his house was not over. On 11.1.1983 his application for extension of leave was rejected. It is his case that the rejection was never communicated to him. He joined duty on 9.4.1983 and was placed under suspension. Departmental proceedings were initiated for unauthorized absence of 90 days. The enquiry report came to be submitted on 16.5.1985 finding him guilty. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had submitted a medical certificate of his illness, from a Medical Officer in the government service. That there was no contradiction between his leave application dated 6.1.1983 and the medical certificate produced by him at the departmental proceedings. That the finding of the enquiry officer is based on surmises and conjectures with regard to the illness and the certificate in support thereof. Reliance is placed on a Judgment of the Court Mithilesh Kumar Pathak V/s. Union of India and Ors., 2007 Supp PLJR 93 in support of the proposition.

(3.) IT is next urged that the order of punishment of dismissal dated 3.7.1985 is vitiated as it takes into consideration the past conduct of the petitioner when that was not a subject of the memo of charges for which reliance is placed upon Rule 286 of the Bihar Police Manual. It is next submitted that under Rule 843 of the Bihar Police Manual adequate provisions are there with regard to nature of punishment for absence of leave. That the appellate order was non -speaking in nature for which reliance is placed upon a judgment in Shiv Shankar Modi V/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors., 2007 4 PLJR 496. It was lastly urged that the punishment of dismissal was stoo harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct alleged for which reliance was again placed on the case of Mithilesh Kumar Pathak (Supra).