This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20.3.2001 terminating his services and the order dated 30.7.2001 dismissing his departmental appeal and the order dated 24.10.2001 dismissing his revision petition.
The facts of the case, in brief, are that while the petitioner, a constable in the 20th Battalian P.A.C. Azamgarh, was posted in District Ballia he applied for three days casual leave on 24.5.2000. He proceeded for leave on 25.5.2000 and was supposed to return back to his duties on 27.5.2000. However, even after passing of three days the petitioner did not report back for duty nor submitted any explanation for remaining absent from duty. Accordingly a charge sheet was issued on 3.1.2001 wherein it was alleged that the petitioner had applied for three days casual leave on 24.5.2000 with effect from 25.5.2000 and he was supposed to return back for duty on 27.5.2000 but he did not report back after expiry of the said period. Accordingly, an enquiry was held in which the petitioner was found to be unauthorizedly absent from duty and the charges having been proved, the petitioner was removed from the service by the impugned order dated 20.3.2001.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The contention of the petitioner is that after he applied for leave he suffered from mental ailment and was under treatment in the Mental Hospital at Ranchi and therefore he could not report back for duty and because he was mentally ill he also could not inform the department about his mental condition or his treatment in the mental Hospital at Ranchi. In support of this contention, the petitioner has filed medical certificates dated 10.12.200, 30.5.2001 and 4.6.2001 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition). The case of the petitioner further is that after being declared mentally fit, he filed a departmental appeal against the order of termination dated 20.3.2001 and alongwith his memo of appeal he filed the documents relating to his mental ailment and the treatment received therefor. However, the appellate authority while rejecting the departmental appeal by the order dated 30.7.2001 has not adverted to these documents nor has taken into consideration this fact that the petitioner was mentally ill and he was under treatment in the mental Hospital at Ranchi and that in such a state of health it was not possible for him to have reported for duty or even informed the department about his mental condition or treatment.
Rebutting the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel contended that from a perusal of the impugned order it will be seen that the department had sent several registered letters to the address of the petitioner calling upon him to report for duty and subsequently to appear before the enquiry officer to make his submission and to cross examine the witnesses but there was no response from the petitioner. It has also been stated that the notices were affixed at the residence of the petitioner.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent in which it has been stated that the petitioner was granted three days casual leave with effect from 24.5.2000 and he was supposed to return back for duty on 27.5.2000 but he did not report back for duty and instead remained unauthorizedly absent from duty. It has also been stated that as a consequence of this unauthorized absence, a preliminary enquiry was held and thereafter detailed enquiry was instituted against the petitioner and thereafter the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 20.3.2000 .
In his departmental appeal the petitioner has specifically taken the ground that he had become mentally ill and was under treatment. In paragraph13 of his memo of appeal the petitioner has also stated that the petitioner got himself examined at the police Hospital at the Primary Health Center, Salempur. The doctor there, referred him to the police Hospital Deoria where he was under treatment for sometime. Thereafter the doctor at the police Hospital referred the petitioner to BHU Hospital and therefore, the petitioner's relatives took him to the Hospital at BHU where he was under treatment in the Shiv Prasad Gupta Hospital, Varanasi and he remained under treatment for about 8 ? 9 months. None of these facts have been considered by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, P.A.C. Varanasi Anubhag, Varanasi, the appellate authority. The appellate order also does not indicate that the appellate authority made any efforts to verify the facts of the mental ailment of the petitioner or the various medical documents submitted by the petitioner in support of his contention that he was mentally ill and under treatment. Rather the appeal has been rejected in a very cursory manner.
Aggrieved by the appellate order dated 30.7.2001 the petitioner submitted a departmental revision petition wherein also it does not appear that the revisional authority-Inspector General of Police P.A.C. Eastern Zone U.P. Lucknow made any efforts to verify the fact of the mental ailment of the petitioner and the fact whether he was really under treatment and whether the medical reports and the documents submitted by him in respect of his treatment were genuine or not. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent also all that has been stated is that a preliminary enquiry was held and a detailed departmental enquiry was held. When the enquiry was held, by whom it was held and on what date the enquiry report was submitted have not been mentioned even in the order of removal. Neither the appellate order nor the revisional order refer to any such departmental enquiry.
Documents regarding his mental ailment were submitted by the petitioner alongwith his memo of appeal as it was only at that stage that he was declared mentally fit and these documents were obviously not before the disciplinary authority, therefore, there was a greater obligation on the appellate authority and the revisional authority to examine the genuineness of the documents and the veracity of the averments made by the petitioner regarding his ailment. It was the demand of principles of natural justice that if the petitioner came up with the case that he was mentally ill and if he submitted his medical documents and mentioned details of the Hospitals in which he was under treatment then the appellant authority and the revisional authority should have at least got these facts verified. Failure to do so, has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellate order and the revisional order have been passed in a casual and routine manner without assigning any cogent reasons for the same.
Accordingly, the appellate order dated 30.7.2001 and the revisional order dated 24.10.2001 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to reconsider the grounds taken by the petitioner in his memo of appeal and the observations made hereinabove. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to file an additional memo of appeal raising all such grounds as he may be advised in order to establish his case and assail the order of the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority shall pass a fresh speaking order, while considering the memo of appeal and the additional memo of appeal, if any, filed by the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order or from the date of submission of additional memo of appeal before him.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to cost.
Order Date :- 6.4.2012 o.k.