OM PRAKASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 23-7-1999 passed, following a departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958, by the Disciplinary Authority, the Commandant Fifth Battalion Rajasthan Armed Corps Jaipur as also the affirming order dated 30-11-1999 passed in appeal whereby the petitioner has been found guilty of the misconduct of 220 days unauthorized absence without leave and punished with a penalty of compulsory retirement. The petitioner is also aggrieved of the subsequent dismissal of his review petition refusing interference against the aforesaid orders.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Constable in the Rajasthan Armed Corps in 1982 and at the time relevant to the misconduct working as Constable in 560 "D" Company 5th Battalion Jaipur. He was charged under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1958') for absence without leave from duty on 33 occasions and for absence from 7-6-1998 to 13-1-1999 i.e. 220 days. In his defence, the petitioner submitted medical certificate with regard to his alleged mental illness as cause for remaining absent without leave, yet on evidence on record, the enquiry officer found him guilty of misconduct. On the report of the enquiry officer, the Disciplinary Authority even while regularizing the break of 220 days in the service of the petitioner found no plausible ground of disagreement with the report of the Enquiry Officer, but instead found that owing to mental illness the petitioner was also unfit for service aside of being guilty of misconduct and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 23-7-1999. That order was confirmed in appeal on 30-11-1999. The review petition filed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Governor of Rajasthan also came to be dismissed on 13-5-2003 as being time barred.

(3.) Mr. Vimal Chaudhary appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority finding the misconduct of unauthorized absence of the petitioner for a period of 220 days and compulsorily retiring him from services is perverse, inasmuch as the evidence of the petitioner's mental illness was overlooked. He further submitted that the unauthorized absence of the petitioner without leave for 220 days having been reqularised by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner ought not to have been punished with the penalty of compulsory retirement. Hence at least the penalty of compulsory retirement be set aside as being shockingly disproportionate.