BISHAVJEET JAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the impugned order of removal dated 16. 7. 2003 (Annexure-4) and order dated 8. 10. 2003 (Annex. 5) passed by the appellate authority whereby the appeal has been dismissed, be quashed and set aside, with a further direction that the petitioner may be exonerated of all charges and reinstated in service with all consequential benefits as if the impugned orders have not been passed.

(2.) THE facts, in brief of the case, as per the petitioner, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 9. 9. 1982 as Constable and posted at Police Line, Jaipur City where he worked up to 16. 7. 2003. On 9. 7. 2002, charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (in short `the CCA Rules') as amended in 1983, was served upon the petitioner by the Supdt. of Police, Jaipur City. By the aforesaid charge-sheet, two charges (i) of willful absence of 168 days and (ii) not intimating the department during the aforesaid absence period which is gross negligence, indiscipline and dereliction in duties were levelled. The petitioner denied the charges and hence, departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. In support of the aforesaid charges, the department produced four witnesses and exhibited six documents which have been marked as PW-1 to 4 and Ex. 1 to 6 respectively. Out of the aforesaid documentary evidence Ex. 4 is the joining report of the petitioner dated 22. 5. 2002 along with 29 illness certificates and one fitness certificate with receipts of all intimation sent to the department were produced. The petitioner submitted his defence that he was ill and submitted medical certificates therefore, both the charges are not established. Enquiry Officer after considering the aforesaid documents gave report that both the aforesaid charges are established. On receipt of the enquiry report, an opportunity of submitting objection was given by he department which was availed of by the petitioner by submitting detailed representation wherein he has made it clear that documents marked Ex. 4 containing illness certificates and fitness certificate were produced by the department, which categorically revealed that the department has accepted the same and further the petitioner was not disputing the same therefore, the Enquiry Officer has seriously erred in not relying on the same. The Disciplinary Authority has also disputed illness certificates of the petitioner on two grounds by observing that i) the same have been issued by Shri Naimuddin, a private Vaidya and (ii) the same have not been certified by the Medical Board. Apart from the above, even if the petitioner was to take treatment by private doctor then he ought to have applied medical leave for treatment and got it extended from time to time from the higher authorities. But the delinquent has deliberately not given intimation and without getting the leave sanctioned remained wilfully absent. Further, the delinquent has not produced the prescription slips and medical slips along with the illness certificates. The second charge has also been found proved by the Disciplinary Authority. Past conduct of major and minor punishments inflicted upon the petitioner was also considered without any notice to him and harsh penalty of removal from service was imposed against which the petitioner filed appeal but without success.

(3.) I have gone through the record of the writ petition and considered rival submissions of the counsel for the parties.