SATTAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought the following reliefs in this writ petition :

(2.) The facts mentioned in the writ are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Police Constable in the year 1972 and was given belt No. 1260. In the year 1990 he was posted at Police lines Ajmer. When the petitioner was on leave from 2.6.1990 to 17.7.1990 on account of illness, a notice dated 20.6.1990 was served. on the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to present himself on duty but on account of illness the petitioner could not reply the said notice. Thereafter chargesheet under Rule 16 of the Raj. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred as the CCA Rules) dated 15.9.1990 was issued to him stating that the petitioner had absconded from duty from 2.6.1990 to 18.7.1990 and after concluding the inquiry, enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority. . The enquiry officer observed A hat the petitioner wilfully absconded from duty from 2.6.1990 in 18.7.1990. The plea of the petitioner that he was suffering from some mental imbalance was rejected. The Medical certificate filed by the petitioner was also disbelieved and it was further observed that the petitioner was a habitual absentee. The disciplinary authority affirmed the fording of the enquiry officer vide order dated 11.2.1991 and the petitioner was dismissed from service and his salary from 2.6.1990 to 18.7.1990 was ordered to be forfeited. Assailing the said order the petitioner permitted an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police Ajmer Range, which was decided vide order dated 31.8.1991 with the finding that the petitioner was not suffering from illness and he fabricated story of illness to hide his negligence. Thus the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority was justified and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed.

(3.) The petitioner has explained the delay of two years in filing this writ petition and challenged the impugned orders on the ground that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority did not apply mind to various alternative penalties mentioned in Rule 14 of the CCA Rules. Looking to the nature and magnitude of charge, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority were duty bound to apply mind in making selection of penalty for good and sufficient reasons, talking into account all vital consideration and gravity of charge, its consequences, working conditions of delinquent and circumstances related to commission of misconduct. Non- application of mind on.the part of the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.