Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 29th May, 1998, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service and the order dated 20th February, 2000 by which the petitioner has been asked to deposit the Kit issued to him.
The brief facts, giving rise to the present case, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable in the Civil Police on 1.4.1065. On 26th October, 1995, the petitioner was posted at LIC Building. It is the case of the petitioner that he fallen ill and was advised complete rest till 7th November, 1995 by the Medical Officer. On 8th November, 1995, the petitioner again fell ill. The petitioner got himself treated at Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital, Allahabad till 14th March, 1996. The petitioner remained under treatment of Dr. Rajendra Singh, a Registered Medical Practitioner at Pratapgarh till 4.6.1996.
The case of the petitioner is that he moved an application before the concerned authority for sanction of his leave with effect from 27th October, 1995 till 4.6.1996. However, no evidence in this regard has been filed by the petitioner and the same has been denied by the respondents in Paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit. Thereafter, unfortunately on 19th July, 1996, son of the petitioner died in a road accident. The wife of the petitioner could not bear the shock and lost her mental balance. The petitioner also lost mental balance and was not in a position to report for duty. After recovery from the mental trauma, the petitioner reported for duty on 8th May, 1998, but when the petitioner went to join his duty, he was served with a copy of the notice dated 15th July, 1997 (Incorrectly mentioned as 2nd July, 1997), issued by he Circle Officer, Maharajpur, Kanpur Nagar and also a show cause notice dated 8th May, 1998, issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice, explaining reasons for his absence and also moved an application for voluntary retirement. It appears that the application seeking voluntary retirement, moved by the petitioner, has not been accepted. However, by the order dated 29th May, 1998, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. It further appears that even after dismissal from service, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service till January, 2000 and also appears that the salary has been paid.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reasons for absence from duty has been explained by the petitioner in the reply to the show cause notice inasmuch as in the termination order leave for the period 26.10.1995 to 10.5.1998, that is, 927 days' leave, without pay has been accepted. He submitted that no proper opportunity has been given to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer and the procedure provided in Appendix I of Rule 40(1) of the U.P. Subordinate Police Officers (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 has not been followed.
Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, produced the record and submitted that the petitioner has been given adverse entry in his Character Roll nine times, between the period 1973 to 1992. The petitioner was absent from duty since 27th October, 1995, without any intimation to any officer and without taking any permission. He continuously remained absent for 927 days and only reported for duty on 8th May, 1998. A preliminary enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted. After concluding the preliminary enquiry, full fledged regular enquiry was recommended and in pursuance thereof the full fledged final enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The enquiry report, dated 15th July, 1997, which is Annexure CA-1, reveals that several notices have been sent to the petitioner. The petitioner was not traceable and ultimately notice was served on 11.4.1997 upon Smt. Lalita Sharma, daughter-in-law of the petitioner before Manoj Sharma and Arun Kumar Dwivedi and another notice was given to his nephew, Gopal Sharma and Shashi Sharma. However, the notice was served on 28.7.1997 on the petitioner with the direction to receive the copy of the chargesheet. On 9.6.1997, he did not appear in the office. On the basis of the statements and the materials on record, the charges against the petitioner were found proved. On the basis of the enquiry report, a show cause notice was admittedly served on the petitioner on 8th May, 1998 alongwith the enquiry report. The petitioner filed the reply, but the petitioner was not able to adduce any evidence to establish that at any point of time he has intimated about his illness or difficulty in joining the duty to his higher officers. The reason for his absence for such a long period has not been properly explained and are not acceptable. He further submitted that the copy of the dismissal order, dated 29.5.1998 has been served upon the petitioner on 31st May, 1998 and the said order has also been published in the Hindi Order Book on 31st May, 1998. Still, he manipulated and continued in the service till 2000 and taking the notice of aforesaid facts, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar, wrote a letter dated 18th February, 1998 to the Circle Officer, Kanpur Nagar to initiate enquiry and take necessary action against the persons, who are involved in permitting the petitioner to continue in service upto 2000 despite the order of dismissal order dated 29th May, 1998 and how the salary has been paid for the subsequent period.
I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.
The foundation of Police Force is discipline. In the Police service or in any other Force, discipline cannot be compromised. Indiscipline in the Police Force cannot be tolerated by any means and if tolerated the system will collapse. If the discipline goes, the Police force is bound to collapse. Therefore, if it is found that any of the Police personnel, including the officer, is involved in indiscipline act or misconduct, he may not be spared and strict action should be taken against him.
In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner was absent from duty since 27th October, 1995 and he remained absent upto 8th May, 1998, for a total period of 927 days. It is wholly unbelievable that the petitioner was so seriously ill that he could not intimate about his illness to his higher officer and could seek the leave and the permission. His absence, without taking leave and prior permission from the higher officer, that too, for such a long period is a clearcut case of misconduct and indiscipline, which cannot be condoned. From the explanation, one can, to some extent, understand the mental disbalance of the petitioner on account of death of his son on 19.7.1996, but with regard to prior period to this incident, there was no justification of his absence without prior permission and intimation. Though, the petitioner has stated in the reply as well as in the writ petition that he has given intimation, but no evidence has been produced or annexed in this regard. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner about giving intimation cannot be accepted. The petitioner has been awarded bad entries nine times from the year 1973 to 1992. This clearly goes to show antecedents of the petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner is further established from the fact that despite service of the dismissal order, he manipulated to continue in service upto 2000 and also received salary for the period subsequent to the order of dismissal.
The contention of the petitioner that in the impugned order, the leave of the petitioner has been sanctioned without pay, therefore, dismissal order is unjustified, cannot be accepted. In the impugned order, first of all the petitioner has been dismissed from service and thereafter taking a lenient view his leave has been sanctioned without pay. Mere sanctioning of leave without pay will not invalidate the dismissal order.
Further, the contention of the petitioner that the dismissal order has been passed without following the procedure in Appendix 1 to Rule 40(1) of Rules 1991 has no substance. The proper procedure, as stated above, has been followed.
In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/= (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only).
Order Date :- 12.10.2012 bgs/