ATAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner, Atar Singh, who was serving the respondent-Department as a Constable at Police Line, District Jaipur (Rural), Jaipur. A charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules of 1958') was served upon him, which contained four charges; the charge No. 1 was to the effect that he remained willfully absent from 09.03.1989 to 21.03.1989 i.e. for 12 days; charge No. 2 was to the effect that he remained willfully absent from 07.04.1989 to 12.04.1989 i.e. for 6 days; charge No. 3 was also of his willful absence from 29.08.1989 to 01.09.1989 i.e. for 4 days; and the charge No. 4 was to the effect that he was in the habit of remaining willfully absent and on previous 45 occasions he remained absent for a total period of 337 days; and, that for this charge i.e. charge No. 4, the petitioner was served with charge-sheets at four times under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 and, the charges on being found proved, he was awarded different penalties; he, however, did not mend his ways and, by remaining absent again frequently, has shown his disinterest in continuing in the government service.

(2.) The petitioner was awarded penalty of dismissal from the service vide order dated 16.03.1990. He filed appeal against the aforesaid penalty order, which was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 31.05.1990. The petitioner thereupon filed review petition before the Governor of the State, which was allowed by order dated 31.05.1994 and the matter was remanded back to the disciplinary authority on the premise that note of disagreement should be furnished to the petitioner for the is a greement recorded by the disciplinary authority with the finding of the enquiry officer on Charge Nos. 2 and 3, and thereafter a representation of the petitioner should be obtained and fresh order of penalty be imposed. It is thereafter that the disciplinary authority, who is Superintendent of Police, Jaipur (Rural), after providing note of disagreement, by his order dated 26.12.1994 again dismissed the petitioner from service, thus, in substance, affirming on the earlier order of penalty. The petitioner again filed an appeal against the dismissal order; the appeal was again dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 27.03.1995. He has now approached this Court against the order of dismissal from the service passed by the disciplinary authority as also the order dismissing his appeal by the appellate authority.

(3.) Shri Mahendra Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the enquiry officer did not follow the procedure laid down in the Rules of 1958. The petitioner was not supplied with all the documents, which were relied upon by the department. He was not given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. In fact, the enquiry officer himself acted as a prosecuting officer by putting cross questions to the witnesses. No opportunity of cross-examination was given to the petitioner. It was argued that the petitioner's elder brother, who was in service of the Police Department and posted at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, met with an accident on 05.02.1989 and, as a result thereof, he died. The petitioner was saddled with extra liabilities of his widow Bhabhi (elder brother's wife), who was not keeping good health. She remained under constant medical treatment. The petitioner produced the medical certificates of her illness showing the ground of his remaining absent for that period. For his absence in the month of April, 1989, the explanation of the petitioner was that he underwent family planning operation and on account thereof he developed some postoperation trouble and he was advised complete bed rest for the period from 07.04.1989 to 15.04.1989. The petitioner produced medical certificate to this effect, which was not accepted by the disciplinary authority. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in so far as the Charge No. 1 is concerned, the total period of absence for all the three charges was only of 16 days for which penalty of dismissal was too excessive and harsh.