Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1096 (JHR)

Anil Kumar Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2014-11-11

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2014
ORDER : The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 05.09.2008 and 02.02.2009 passed y by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority respectively, has preferred this instant writ petition. 2. The brief facts argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is as follows: 3. The petitioner after being appointed as constable in the Armed Police force in the year, 2003 had started discharging his duty while he was posted in the district of Latehar. He was granted leave for the period of four days i.e. from 26.09.2007 to 30.09.2007 but due to the reason beyond his control, he could not be able to appear in the office after completion of the said sanctioned leave. He was suggested to report from 01.10.2007, but he could not be able to do so, as such a memo of charge was served upon him, alleging therein that he has absented himself from office for a period of 154 days, without any permission from the competent authority. In the said memo of charge, earlier unauthorized absence of the petitioner has also been mentioned. The petitioner, thereafter, was served notice to appear before the inquiry officer but he could not appear and in his absence, the inquiry officer has submitted his report, after accepting the findings of the inquiry officer, the petitioner has been dismissed form service vide order dated 05.09.2008. Petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ranchi, who without considering the reason assigned by the petitioner in memo of appeal affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The argument on behalf of learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner proceeded on sanctioned leave for the period of four days but due to illness of his wife and ultimately he also met with an accident resulting in fracture of his leg, he could not be able to present himself in office after expiry of his sanctioned leave due to the reason beyond his control. 4. Further it has been argued that the proceeding has been concluded ex-parte and the petitioner has not been given opportunity of being heard. Even in appeal, all points raised by the petitioner have not been considered by the appellate authority. 4. Further it has been argued that the proceeding has been concluded ex-parte and the petitioner has not been given opportunity of being heard. Even in appeal, all points raised by the petitioner have not been considered by the appellate authority. He has further argued that before reaching to the conclusion, it was the duty of the disciplinary authority to exercise power conferred under rule 843 of Jharkhand Police Manual and as such he has argued that the order of dismissal is not in accordance with law. 5. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that petitioner being habituated absentee absented himself from office and he remained absent from office for five times. The petitioner although has been provided opportunity to defend himself before the inquiry officer but he has not availed the said opportunity. He has further submitted that petitioner has not produced any medical certificate rather application had been sent by him through UPC, which cannot be believed and as such it has been argued on behalf of the State counsel that the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority after going through the entire aspects of the matter and seeing the conduct of the petitioner of habitual nature of absenteeism, have passed the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service, which has got no infirmity. 6. Heard the parties. 7. The petitioner was appointed in the year, 2003 and petitioner has absented himself for quite some time as it would appear from the memo of charge i.e. for 32 days in the month of December, 2005, for 32 days in the month of July, 2006, for 10 days in the month of October, 2006, for 91 days in December, 2006, for 2 days in July, 2007 without any reason explained on his behalf. 8. 8. The petitioner though has been granted sanctioned leave for the period of four days and thereafter he absented himself in office on garb of illness of his wife and subsequently on his illness but from records, it does not appear that either the petitioner’s wife or the petitioner has been taken to O.P.D. at R.I.M.S. Hospital rather the certificates which have been annexed suggest that there were no compelling circumstances lying with the petitioner since according to the petitioner he was in treatment in OPD being outdoor patient, he could have informed to the office but he has not done which suggest his habitual nature of absenteeism. The petitioner is admittedly a member of disciplined police force and the absenteeism of 154 days without any valid reason is absolutely gross misconduct. Thus, this nature shows that the absenteeism of the petitioner was willful, because he had not furnished any information to the authorities concerned. 9. On perusal of the orders, I find that there is a concurrent finding in the orders of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot reappraise the evidence and cannot disturb the facts and finding given by the disciplinary authority as has been held by the Apex Court in case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Raj Kishore Yadav and Another reported in (2006) 5 SCC 673 at para 4 as follows: “…………. It is a settled law that the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed.” 10. The writ petition being devoid of merit is, hereby, dismissed.