This petition is directed against order of dismissal dated 09.06.2004, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh, as affirmed with dismissal of appeal and revision vide orders dated 02.08.2005 and 28.02.2006.
Records reveal that petitioner was a Constable and posted at Haridwar. He was transferred from Haridwar to Aligarh and was allowed joining time of seven days. Petitioner although was relieved from Haridwar on 11.10.2003 but he never reported for joining at Aligarh. An order of suspension was passed against him on 28.05.2003 on account of his continuous absence from duty. A preliminary enquiry was also directed in which report was submitted on 30.08.2003. Ultimately, disciplinary proceedings under rule 14(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 were initiated on 12.09.2003. The Enquiry Officer directed service of charge sheet upon the petitioner since he had not joined his duty. A special messenger was sent to petitioner's residence at village Hajorabad, Police Station Binauli (now Police Station Ami Nagar Sarai), District Bagpat. Petitioner since was not available at his residence therefore the special messenger affixed the charge sheet on his house in the presence of two witnesses. Though petitioner was required to submit reply by 01.10.2003 but the petitioner submitted no reply. Repeated notices by registered post were thereafter also sent to petitioner's residence. A public notice was also published in Hindi daily Dainik Jagran and another registered letter also sent on 17.12.2003 at petitioner's residence which returned unserved. The enquiry accordingly proceeded exparte against the petitioner and various witnesses including special messenger, who had served charge sheet upon the petitioner were adduced as witnesses. The Enquiry Officer in his detailed enquiry report contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition has recorded that charge sheet was duly served upon the petitioner and his absence from duty from October, 2003 was established on record. Finding the petitioner's absence to be unauthorized and without any justification the Enquiry Officer submitted adverse enquiry report on the basis of which the order of dismissal has been passed. This order has been affirmed in appeal and revision.
Sri Anil Bhusan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that though enquiry proceedings were initiated but the charge sheet was never served upon the petitioner. It is also submitted that petitioner was suffering from serious back pain and was advised complete bed rest. It is also urged that petitioner was ultimately declared fit for joining but before that he was placed under suspension. It is also contended that these communications were sent under posting certificate (UPC) but these documents have not been taken note of while passing the order impugned. It is therefore argued that there is complete denial of principles of natural justice in holding of enquiry proceedings.
Counter affidavit has been filed disputing the averments made in the writ petition. It is contended that petitioner never submitted his any reply/explanation nor submitted any reply to the charge sheet. It is also submitted that all documents relating to petitioner's illness were issued by the Primary Health Centre which does not demonstrate any serious illness and these documents have otherwise never been sent to the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority.
Rejoinder affidavit has been filed denying the averments made in the counter affidavit and reiterating the averments made in the writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State authorities and perused the materials brought on record.
From the materials that have been placed it is apparent that petitioner was relieved on 11.10.2003 from Haridwar but he never reported for joining at Aligarh. Petitioner was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated as per rule 14(1) of the Rules of 1991. The enquiry report clearly records that the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner by its affixation on the petitioner's residence. The documents in that regard were produced before the Enquiry Officer and the special messenger has also been adduced before the Enquiry Officer. Public notice has also been published in newspaper Dainik Jagran and various notices by registered post have otherwise been sent to petitioner from time to time.
There is absolutely nothing on record to show that petitioner ever responded to these notices or that any attempt was made by him to inform the authorities about his sickness. There is not a single letter/reply sent by registered post. Not much importance can be given to the alleged dispatch of letters under certificate of posting since such records are not maintained by the Department of Posts. The absence of petitioner continued for almost two years without any satisfactory explanation on part of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer as affirmed by disciplinary authority that petitioner's absence was wholly unauthorized is clearly substantiated on record. Such unauthorized absence for a period of two years would clearly justify an inference that petitioner's absence from duty was without any willful cause. Although learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was sick during this period but this argument also cannot be accepted inasmuch as nothing prevented the petitioner from informing such facts to the authorities or placing such facts by way of reply in the enquiry proceedings.
The medical certificate issued by the Primary Health Centre do not show that petitioner was ever hospitalized or incapacitated. It was always open for the petitioner to have appeared before the authorities at Aligarh or atleast sent a letter by the registered post. The manner in which petitioner has subsequently tried to build up a case for denial of opportunity, on the strength of alleged communications sent under posting certificate, lends credence to the defence of the State that petitioner only intended to make out a subsequent plea for denial of opportunity and there was absolutely no defence available to the petitioner, on merits.
In view of the above discussions this Court finds that procedure for awarding major punishment was duly followed and sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner but he has failed to respond. In such circumstances, finding of guilt is found to be based upon materials available on record which requires no interference.
Writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.8.2021 Ashok Kr.