Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 538 (HP)

RANDHIR SINGH v. STATE OF H. P.

2009-06-03

RAJIV SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.-The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector on 16.12.1985. He proceeded on five days’ special leave on 22.10.1989. He did not resume his duties after the expiry of leave period. He applied for extension of leave on 26.11.1989, 8.12.1989, 1.1.1990, 16.1.1990 and 1.3.1990. The extension of leave was refused. He was directed to resume his duties and to appear before the Medical Board at Ripon Hospital, Shimla as per Annexure R-1/. He informed the authorities that he was not in a position to come to Shimla. In these circumstances, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. He did not associate himself in the inquiry. The inquiry was held ex parte. The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of recommendations made by the Inquiry Officer imposed the penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner on 19.5.1995. The special messenger was sent to handover the copy of order dated 19.5.1995 to him. He did not receive the same. He did not permit the messenger to place the orders on some conspicuous place at his residence. The petitioner was permitted to place on record copy of order dated 19.5.1995. The same has not been placed on record by him. 2. The learned counsel has not appeared. However, since the original application was filed in the year 2001, the same was heard on merits with the assistance of learned Senior Additional Advocate General. 3. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that since the petitioner has not placed on record copy of order dated 19.5.1995, the same cannot be quashed. He then contended that the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy of filing an appeal. Mr. R.K. Sharma has lastly contended that the penalty of dismissal has been imposed upon the petitioner on the basis of inquiry report. 4. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for willful absence. He has not participated in the inquiry proceedings. The inquiry was held ex parte. The penalty of dismissal has been imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The authorities have sent copy of order dated 19.5.1995 to him through a special messenger. He was bound to accept the same. He has also not permitted the special messenger to place the order at a conspicuous place at his residence. 5. The inquiry was held ex parte. The penalty of dismissal has been imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The authorities have sent copy of order dated 19.5.1995 to him through a special messenger. He was bound to accept the same. He has also not permitted the special messenger to place the order at a conspicuous place at his residence. 5. The plea raised by the petitioner that he came to know about the order of dismissal after five years cannot be believed. He has served a notice dated 1.9.1999 upon the Director General of Police and Senior Superintendent of Police admitting therein that he came to know about dismissal order in the month of June, 1996. He has claimed to have filed an appeal against the order of dismissal. It has come in the reply that no appeal was ever received by the appellate authority. He has not filed any rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents. He has assailed his dismissal after more than five years. He was required to file the original application within a reasonable period of six months to one year. The messenger had gone to serve him the order dated 19.5.1995 at his residence. He refused to accept the same. 6. In these circumstances, it can safely be presumed that he knew about the orders. His consistent stand is that he was not served with the office order dated 19.5.1995. He has admitted in the notice dated 1.9.1999 served upon the respondents, as noticed above, that he came to know about final orders in the month of June, 1996. It is settled law by now that the Court cannot strike down any order which is not placed on record. The petitioner has not filed along with the petition copy of order dated 19.5.1995. He had been given opportunity to do so. He has failed to avail the same. The authorities have sanctioned special leave on 22.10.1989. It is apparent that thereafter, he has not joined his duties and had been sending applications for extension of his leave. These were turned down by the authorities. He has not appeared before the Medical Board at Ripon Hospital, Shimla as per Annexure R-1. He did not associate himself in the inquiry. He was proceeded ex parte. In these circumstances, order of his dismissal cannot be faulted with. He belonged to a disciplined force. These were turned down by the authorities. He has not appeared before the Medical Board at Ripon Hospital, Shimla as per Annexure R-1. He did not associate himself in the inquiry. He was proceeded ex parte. In these circumstances, order of his dismissal cannot be faulted with. He belonged to a disciplined force. He could not abstain from active duty without cogent reasons. The present petition has been filed after five years from the passing of order dated 19.5.1995. He has not placed this order on record. The petitioner has also averred in the petition that the disciplinary proceedings could not be initiated once he has filed an application for voluntary retirement. This decision was to be taken by the employer. The disciplinary proceedings could not be stayed only for the reason that the petitioner had moved an application for voluntary retirement. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no force in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.