RAMA SHANKAR RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged order dated 28.8.2004 passed by the disciplinary authority and order dated 3.12.2004 passed by the appellate authority affirming the order of dismissal from service. The petitioner while posted at Hazaribagh proceeded on compensatory leave from 3.1.2004 to 15.1.2004. During that period his son-in-law went missing and in the meantime, his brother-in-law also died. The petitioner intimated the Commandant through registered letter sent on 22.1.2004. The petitioner reported for duty on 13.3.2004. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and charge-memo was served upon the petitioner on 26.3.2004. Two charges namely, (i) unauthorised absence from duty for 57 days, and, (ii) overstaying on 28 occasions were framed against the petitioner. On conclusion of the proceeding, enquiry report was submitted on 12.7.2004 recommending that in view of the abscondence of the son-in-law and death of the brother-in-law of the petitioner, the departmental proceeding may be closed after issuing warning to the petitioner. The petitioner was supplied a copy of the enquiry report and he submitted his reply on 22.9.2004 reiterating his stand taken before the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority on consideration of the enquiry report and past misconduct of the petitioner, passed the order of penalty whereby annual increment for one year was forfeited and a warning was issued to the petitioner that in future if any misconduct is proved, no punishment less than the dismissal from service would be inflicted upon him. The petitioner presented his appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police which was dismissed on 3.12.2004.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner could not join duty due to unfortunate incidents in which his son-in-law went missing and brother-in-law had died. The reasons were beyond the control of the petitioner and the absence from duty was not willful and therefore, the recommendation of the enquiry officer should have been accepted by the disciplinary authority and the proceeding should have been closed by issuing warning to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents has justified the orders passed against the petitioner.

(3.) A perusal of the documents on record discloses that the past misconduct of the petitioner has been enumerated in the charge-memo issued to the petitioner and the previous misconducts have been taken into account by the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the final conclusion of the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer, it appears, failed to notice the past Incidents of misconduct whereunder the petitioner was awarded 11 minor punishments and two major punishments, I also find that on 28 occasions, the petitioner has overstayed and on one occasion he absconded During the enquiry the petitioner refused to plead his case. The petitioner has admitted the charges levelled against him and the only plea taken by the petitioner is that due to reasons beyond his control he could not join his duties. I am of the opinion that in view of the past proved misconduct of the petitioner, the order passed by the disciplinary authority is just and proper and it does not require any interference by this Court.