Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 884 (JHR)

Awadesh Kumar Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2005-12-23

M.Y.EQBAL

body2005
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing to order dated 3.5.2003 passed by respondent No. 4, the Superintendent of Police, J.A.P.-7-Hazaribagh whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service with effect from 1.5.2003. 2. The petitioner, who is a constable was charge-sheeted and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him for his unauthorized absence from duty. It is contended by the petitioner that he was absent for 102 days as against his earned leave of 122 days which was at his credit and so, at best, he should have been granted medical leave in case of absence instead of passing an order of dismissal from service. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner is a habitual absconder from duty and he has been awarded three major punishments earlier also for unauthorizedly absconding from duty for periods as long as 186 days and the petitioner against absconded from duty on 18.4.2002 and returned after a lapse of 102 days on 29.7.2002. After the returned he submitted a concocted report that he was "kidnapped" by alleged Nexalites while he was going to company-headquarters at Chatra on 18.4.2002 from his place of posting i.e. Pratappur in Chatra district and he also submitted along with his explanation a medical certificate from a private practitioner of Ranchi that during the aforesaid period of his absence he was also under treatment of the said private doctor, at Ranchi from 19.5.2002 to 23.7.2002 for mental illness and he did not underwent treatment at Ranchi Mansik Arogyashala. 4. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that no incident of the petitioners alleged kidnapping by Naxalite was reported by his immediate superior officers or by the Chatra Police. It is stated that the petitioner tried to hatch up an unreliable story of his wilful absence from duty for 102 days. It is further stated that the petitioner again absconded from duty from 18.4.2002 to 29.7.2002. Thus his explanation was not accepted. It is further stated that the petitioner again absconded from duty on 27.12.2002, and he was placed under suspension on 2.1.2003. 5. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that despite service of show cause notice in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner neither replied the charges nor presented himself before the competent authority to explain the unauthorized absence. It is further stated that the petitioner again absconded from duty on 27.12.2002, and he was placed under suspension on 2.1.2003. 5. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that despite service of show cause notice in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner neither replied the charges nor presented himself before the competent authority to explain the unauthorized absence. It is also stated that when the petitioner did not report to duty, his absence was published in the newspaper and he was asked to report to duty but even after that the petitioner did not either turn up for duty or submitted his explanation. It is stated that thereafter a messenger was sent to the petitioner residence vide office memo No. 716 dated 1.4.2003 but even after service of notice by the messenger, the petitioner neither turned up for duty nor filed his explanation. 6. It is thus stated in the counter affidavit that finding the petitioner traceless and on failure to secure his attendance, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide office order No. 941/R.O. dated 3.5.2003. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the uncontroverted statements made in the counter affidavit, I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioner is not at all fit to be retained in the police service. The impugned order of dismissal from service is perfectly legal and valid which needs no interference. This writ petition is dismissed.