(1.) THIS writ petition arises out of an order of removal of the petitioner from service duly upheld by the appellate Authority (respondents) in disciplinary inquiry initiated for the charges as to the absence from head quarter station at Shamgarh (Kota) and overstay permitted ten days during the period of suspension.
(2.) IN nut shell, the facts relevant for the present controversy are thus:- After completion of initial training course from 15. 12. 86 to 14. 7. 87 and further practical training from 15. 7. 87 to 14. 8. 87, the petitioner was appointed as Constable and then confirmed as such. However, he was placed under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary inquiry by suspension order dated 15. 1. 90 (Annex. 1), whereby he was directed to report his attendance daily at Kota (W) but with a specific condition that he is not permitted to leave his headquarter during suspension without permission of the competent authority since otherwise he will be liable to the taken up for necessary disciplinary actin under RPF Rules. By subsequent order dated 19. 3. 90 the Divisional Security Commissioner (RPF) Kota (respondent No. 3) shifted headquarter of the petitioner from Kota to Shyamgarh with immediate effect, whereby it was also specified that during suspension the petitioner would be subject to responsibilities of the members of the Force u/rule 143 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (for short, "rpf" ). Admittedly pursuant to order dated 19. 3. 90 he petitioner reported for attendance at Shyamgarh (100 kms. away from Kota) on 23. 3. 90.
(3.) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that a number of documents including notice allegedly issued by the respondent No. 3 were taken on record and considered by the inquiry officer but curiously enough they were not at all tendered in evidence even without referring it either in the list of documents or in the statements of the allegation attached to the charge sheet or even in the statement of Shri L. R. Jatav (only departmental witness ).