JAMILA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Sirajuddin was working as Constable having so appointed on 18. 9. 1976 and when he had put in about 20 years of service he developed heard disease and was treated in Govt. Hospital at Jaipur and the pace maker was installed. THE petitioner was refunded the amount of Rs. 43,000/- spent by him for operation vide order dated 21. 9. 94 (Ann. 1 ). He was advised for complete rest. THE petitioner was deputed at the residence of Addl. Supdt. of Police Police Line, Jaipur to perform his duties, where according to petitioner he felt some difficulty because of previous heart disease and continued to be under treatment till July, 1995, as per medical certificates (annexure 2 to 8 ).

(2.) EVEN though the petitioner states that he had informed the respondents about his sickness and for extension of leave, but still the department issued the charge sheet to petitioner for remaining absent, without information as alleged w. e. f. 1. 11. 94 and joined only on 17. 6. 95. The charge sheet was issued under rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 for having remained wilful absent 1. 11. 94 to 16. 6. 95. The Enquiry Officer was appointed; the prosecution evidence was recorded; the petitioner filed reply. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report on 30. 11. 95 stating therein that the charge stood proved and ultimately the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 6. 8. 96 (ann. 15 ). The period of absence was treated as leave without pay i. e. Extra Ordinary Leave vide annexure-15 by the competent authority.

(3.) RELIANCE has also been placed on the judgment in case of Shri Bhagat Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (2), wherein it was held that imposition of penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct of the delinquent employee amounts to violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India. The court even, in the case of Government servant, imposed penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect keeping in view the nature of misconduct of the employee.