DES RAJ Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who was constable in the police Department was deputed for undergoing training course at Manigam. He was directed to report for duty at the above place. He was to report for duty on 2nd of July 1986. Petitioner did not report for duty on 2nd of July 1986. Petitioner did not report at Manigam Training School. He thus remained absent. He not only remained absent but drew his salary for the period of absence. This period of absence was from July 1986 to Oct. 1986. The petitioner reported to Police Lines on 18th Dec. 1987. For this, departmental proceedings were initiated against him. Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner was on unauthorised absence. He recommended that the petitioner be reduced to minimum of scale for five years. Disciplinary authority namely Senior Superintendent of Police however did not agree with the course proposed by the enquiry officer. Senior Superintendent of Police was of the view that the petitioner should be removed from service. The petitioner was accordingly served with a show notice. After due compliance of procedural requirement, the petitioner was removed from service. An appeal was preferred and appeal stands dismissed.

(2.) Appellate authority came to the conclusion that explanation given by the petitioner, deserved to be rejected and it was accordingly rejected. The appellate authority found no lacuna in departmental enquiry held against the petitioner. Appeal was accordingly dismissed. It is the order of removal as well as order by which appeal was dismissed which are subject matter of challenge in this petition. The arguments raised by the petitioner are :

(3.) Argument raised by the petitioner that the enquiry officer was not appointed by competent authority and that proceedings are added (vitiated ) on that account is merely to be noticed and rejected. In case reported as State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Shardul Singh, 1970(1) SCC 108 , the Supreme Court of India has held in no uncertain terms that short of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, all other steps can be taken by an authority which need not be the appointing authority. This view has been reiterated in latter decision. See: