RAMJI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 02.04.1997 (Annex.-1) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby, the petitioner was removed from service, so also, the orders passed by the appellate authority and reviewing authority whereby the appeal and review application filed by the petitioner were dismissed. As per facts of the case, the petitioner was working on the post of Constable, he was served with memorandum of charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (to be called hereinafter "the CCA Rules") on 14.02.1996. The said charge-sheet was given to the petitioner because he remained absent willfully for 240 days. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner; but, thereafter, no reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and in his back the inquiry was conducted ex-parte and final order of removal dated 02.04.1997 was passed.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that order impugned is against principle of natural justice because proper opportunity of defending his case in the inquiry was not granted by the authority who has passed order for removal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon perusal of the order of removal it will reveal that on the one hand the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City, Jaipur passed an order of removal from service against the petitioner and, on the other hand, he has sanctioned extraordinary leave for the period in respect of which he was charge-sheeted with the allegation of willful absence from duty. The said period is with effect from 13.08.1984 to 17.04.1985; meaning thereby, on the one hand, the Disciplinary Authority punished the petitioner for misconduct and, on the other hand, he himself has passed order for regularising the leave (alleged absence) period by way of passing order of sanctioning 248 days' extraordinary leave, therefore, in view of the judgment in State of Punjab & Others v. Bakshish Singh, 1999 AIR(SC) 2626 the order impugned is not sustained in law because the Disciplinary Authority himself has regularised the leave period. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the leave period is condoned, then, automatically, the charge of absence did not survive, therefore, only on this ground this writ petition deserves to be allowed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, reported in RLW 2002 (1) Raj. 205, in which, the aforesaid judgment of Bakshish Singh's case, rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, was followed and order of termination was quashed.