PRABHU DAYAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS of the case He in a very narrow compass. Petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Police Department with effect from 12.2.82 and he was last posted in District Nagaur at Police Lines. In the month of September 1990 the petitioner's wife got seriously ill. He received a telegram about the illness of his wife, on 18.9.90. He sought casual leave for seven days with permission to avail three gazetted holidays and this leave was sanctioned. Petitioner's wife continued to remain ill as an indoor patient at Government Hospital, Tehsil Baswa District Dausa and since the petitioner had no one else to look after her, he had to stay back at Baswa to look after his wife. He, therefore, sent a telegram to the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur for extension of his leave. The telegram was addressed to the Resident Inspector of Police Lines, Nagaur on 26.9.90. During the period of illness of his wife, petitioner's elder brother's daughter, who had been married recently, expired. Thereafter petitioner's elder brother also died in December 1990 and his wife (petitioner's Bhabhi) died in March 1991. According to the petitioner, he remained under serious mental and physical shock on account of the three consecutive deaths in his family and he could not report for duty. He submitted his joining report on 14.9.91 and also submitted medical certificate of his wife's illness which covered 239 days.

(2.) AN enquiry was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 vide memo dated 14.8.91. Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet and denied the allegations. He gave out details of his absence and reasons for his alleged absence, In his reply the petitioner clearly indicated that three members of his family had died in quick succession and his wife was seriously ill and that was the reason for his absence from duty. Shri Ravi Gaur, a member of the Rajasthan Police Service, was appointed to hold enquiry into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Shri Gaur submitted his report Annexure -2 wherein he recorded a conclusion that although the petitioner had not reported for duty after expiry of the leave sanctioned to him, his absence was on account of serious ailment of his wife and successive deaths of the members of his family. He expressed opinion that the absence cannot be treated to be a wilful absence. At the same time the Enquiry Officer recommended that a sympathetic consideration may be made in the case of petitioner.

(3.) PETITIONER has assailed this order on various grounds set out in the writ petition, the most important of them is that a copy of enquiry report was not made available to the petitioner before the Superintendent of Police passed the order of punishment and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his representation in respect of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner had also claimed that the punishment imposed on his is highly excessive and arbitrary and that the disciplinary authority has completely ignored the most important fact relating to the deaths of three members of his family.