Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh.Subhash Chandra vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 4 July, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA-603/2010 New Delhi this 4th day of July, 2011 HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Sh.Subhash Chandra Ex.Ct. of Delhi Police PIS No.288836 S/o Sh. Bishana Ram, R/o VPO Nigadhu Distt. Karnal, Haryana. .. Applicant.
(By Advocate:Shri Anil Singal) Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Commissioner of Police PHQ, IP Estates, New Delhi.
2. Special Commissioner of Police Armed Force, PHQ, IP Estates, New Delhi.
3. D.C.P. (3rd Bn.DAP) Vikas Puri Police Complex, New Delhi.
4. Sh. V.A. Gupta(DANIPS) DCP (3rd Bn.DAP) Vikas Puri Police Complex, New Delhi. Respondents.
(By Adocate: Shri Amit Anand) Order Shri G.George Paracken The Applicant has challenged the Annexure A 4 order of penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority after holding the departmental enquiry against him and the Appellate Order dated 11.12.2009 rejecting his appeal and upholding of the order of Disciplinary Authority.
2. The allegation of the applicant was regarding his unauthorized absent from duty. The said allegation reads as under:-
Const. Subhash Chander, No.2804/DAP (PIS No.28883674) while posted at Vikas Puri Police Lines, Delhi/III Bn. DAP, he was required to report for duty on 16.06.07 but he did not turn up. Therefore, he was marked absent vide DD No.39-B dated 16.06.07 and he has been running absent w.e.f. 16.06.07 without any prior permission/information of the competent authority, which is an utter violation of C.C.S. (Leave) Rules, 1972 and S.O. No.111/88 of Delhi Police.
During his absence period the following absence notices were sent at his residence through Regd. Post with the direction to resume his duty at once or in case of sickness he was further directed to appear before Chief Medical Officer, Karnal (Haryana) for second medical examination failing which, disciplinary action will be taken against him:-
Sl.No. Absentee notices Remarks
1. 6267-71/ASIP-III Bn. dt. 25.6.07 A copy of absence notice was sent at his residence through Regd. Post, which was received in this office with the remarks of Postal Authority that PRAPT KARTA BHAHAR SERVICE KARTA HAI BAR-BAR JANE PER GHAR PER KOI NEHI MILTA HAI VAPAS.
2. 7186-90/ASIP-III Bn. dt. 20.7.07 A copy of absentee notice was sent at his residence through Regd. Post as well as S.P. Karnal (HR). S.P. Karnal reported that the mother of Const. Subhash told him that her son is living in Delhi alongwith family and his address is not known to her.
3. 8573-77/ASIP-III Bn. dt. 23.8.07 A copy of absentee notice was sent at his residence through Regd. Post, which is deemed to be served upon the Const. otherwise the same would have been returned to this office undelivered with the remarks of postal authority. But it is not received back in this office.
Despite issuing the above absentee notices he neither resumed his duty nor appeared before Chief Medical Officer, Karnal (Haryana) for second medical examination.
On the directions of the undersigned a U.O. was sent at his residence through special messenger i.e. HC Kamal Singh, No.7067/DAP vide No.9485-86/ASIP-III Bn. Dated 24.9.07 to find out actual position of the Constable who met with Const. Subhash and told him that due to illness he could not report for duty and also failed to inform the department. He received the said u.o. on 5.10.07, but he did not resume his duty so far. Therefore, on the directions of the undersigned a u.o. was again sent at his residence through HC Ram Mehar, No.2109/DAP vide No.12638/ASIP-III Bn. dated 11.12.07 to direct the Const. for joining his duty at once, who met with the Const. and the Const. told him that he is running under treatment from the Private Doctor. He received the notice on 15.12.07 but he did not resume his duty so far.
His Past absentee record also shows that he is a habitual absentee and incorrigible type of person as he has absented himself on 09 different occasions in the past and despite decided the period as commuted leave, L.K.D., N.S.D. etc., but he did not mend himself.
The above act on the part of Const. Subhash Chander, No.2804/DAP amounts to gross misconduct, negligence, carelessness and dereliction in the discharge of his official duties which renders him liable to be dealt with departmentally under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980.
3. The Inquiry Officer has reported that summary of allegation, list of witnesses and documents have served upon the Applicants wife at his residence on 29.2.2008. Thereafter, Inquiry Officer summoned him on 3.3.2008, 10.3.2008 and 15.3.2008 with the direction to attend the departmental enquiry proceedings. But he did not appear on any one of those days, despite the fact that he personally received the notices for all those days. The Inquiry Officer further reported that the departmental inquiry proceedings against him were getting delayed unnecessary because of his non-cooperation. After having considered the above situation, Disciplinary Authority, vide Annexure A-2 letter dated 24.3.2008 permitted the Inquiry Officer to conduct the departmental inquiry proceedings ex-parte against the Applicant in accordance with procedure of Rules 18 of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. During the course of proceedings, Shri HC Ram Mehar, PW-2 and PW-3, HC Kamal Singh stated that they were detained to find out the actual position of the Applicant who was absent from duty and they submitted their report to the authority concerned. PW-4, HC Subhir Kumar produced the record pertaining to the previous absence of the Applicant from duty. PW-5, HC Raghu Nath has produced the various unauthorized absentee notices issued to the Applicant.
4. In the discussion of evidence, the Inquiry Officer has stated that the allegation against the Applicant was that while he posted at Vikas Puri Police Lines, he was required to report for duty on 16.06.07 but since then he was running absent. In spite of absentee notices he did not joined the duty and he has also refused to appear before chief medical officer, Jhajjar (HR) for second medical examination. He also did not join the departmental enquiry proceedings despite service of various summons/notices. Inquiry Officer also recorded considered the record of previous absence on 9 occasions. On the basis of the above facts and circumstances, the Inquiry Officer held that the charge against the Applicant was fully approved.
5. The disciplinary authority, tentatively agreeing with the aforesaid findings of Inquiry Officer, served a copy of the same on the applicant vide order dated 5.9.2009 for submitting his written representation if any, against the findings of the EO within 15 days from the date of receipt, with the further direction that if he does not submit any representations it will be presumed that he has nothing to say in his defence. He did not make any representations. The Respondents again sent reminder to the applicant on 12.2.2009, 27.3.2009 and 09.04.2009 to furnish written representation but he refused to do so.
6. In the above facts and circumstances of the case the Disciplinary Authority vide its Annexure A 4 order dated27.05.2009, imposed upon the penalty of dismissal from service. The relevant part of the said order is as under:-
I have carefully gone through the findings of the E.O. and other relevant records available on D.E. file. He never submitted any representation/submission against the findings of the E.O. It seens that he has nothing to say about his unauthorized absence, which also shows that he is reluctant/apathy to give any statement in his defence. He was called in O.R. six times and asked him to give his written representation in his defence, but he did not bother despite repeated requests. He should have taken prior permission of the competent authority for leave in which he failed. Previously, he had absented himself on 09 different occasions which shows his gross negligence, carelessness in the performance of his official duties. He is not found sincere in respect of his duties. In view of the current security scenario of the Country, Delhi Police Department requires most devoted and dedicated persons, who may be available on war footage in case of any emergency/contingency. The charge served upon the defaulter has already been proved in the departmental enquiry. H has violated the provisions contained in Rule 19 (5) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and S.O. No.111 of Delhi Police in this fashion. Absenteeism in the disciplined force is a serious matter because it cripples the entire administration of the police department. Each and every police personnel is deployed for duty with specific tasks. It is like a chain and if one link of chain is missed, it jeopardize the entire security system. If police personnel found absent from duty, it weaken the whole security system, which is quite serious. This is a serious lapse on the part of defaulter Const. Subhash Chander, No.2804/DAP. He is unfit to be retained, in the disciplined force like Delhi Police. Further, continuance of such irresponsible element in the service may adversely affect the others. He, therefore, deserves for severe punishment. Holding him responsible for the severest misconduct and in view of his past lamentable and spontaneous behaviour, agreeing with the findings of the E.O., I, R.N. Meena, Dy. Commissioner of Police, III Bn. DAP, Delhi, therefore, inclined to impose the penalty of dismissal from service and accordingly hereby order to dismiss the defaulter Constable Subhash Chander, No.2804/DAP from service with immediate effect. His absence period is also decided as period Not spent on duty for all intents and purposes which may not be regularized in any manner.
7. However, the applicant made an undated appeal against the aforesaid order of the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority vide Annexure A 6 order dated 11.12.2009 rejected his appeal and its relevant part is as under:-
I have carefully gone through the appeal, impugned order and all the relevant material on record. The contentions of the appellant have no force. If the appellant was actually sick, he should have sent proper application for leave enclosing a copy of medical certificate to the department through Post/FAX for obtaining leave/permission as per leave rules, but he did not do. During the period of absence, he was issued absentee notices directing him to resume his duties at once or in case of illness, report to CMO, Civil Hospital, District Karnal, Haryana for second medical examination. But he neither resumed his duty nor reported for second medical examination. The appellant neither sent any intimation nor responded to the absentee notices mentioned above and chose to absent himself unauthorisedly. The appellant was served the summon to join the DE proceedings through special messenger. But despite service of summon, the appellant neither joined the DE proceedings nor resumed his duty, hence permission to conduct ex-parte proceedings was obtained and DE was completed ex-parte on merits. The EO conducted the enquiry within the ambit of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980. The charge was proved on the basis of documentary evidence adduced during the DE proceedings. The appellant was given ample opportunity to defend his case during the DE proceedings but he did not. The appellant did not submit any medical papers in support of his plea. His previous absence has not been taken into consideration while deciding the present DE. The disciplinary authority has awarded the punishment after evaluating all the facts of the case on record which is legal and justified. The order passed by the disciplinary authority is in accordance of rules on the subject.
I have also heard the appellant in OR. He could not come out with anything fresh except the above points of defence statement. Keeping in view the facts of case, I see no reason to interfere with the orders of the disciplinary authority. Hence, the appeal is rejected.
8. In the present OA, the Applicant has challenged aforesaid orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority on the ground that the authorities concerned have not considered his illness only for the reason that he has not sent proper applications for leave. His further contention is that he was appointed by an IPS Officer but the order of punishment was passed by respondent No.4, then DCP 3rd Bn DAP who was a DANIPS officer and the same was in violation of Annexure A-9 of OM dated 7.8.1959 which reads as under:-
(4) When Presidents power for nominating an ad hoc disciplinary authority to be invoked. (i) When the appointing authority is higher in rank The terms used in the constitution and the CCS (CCA) Rules, viz., Subordinate to or lower than the Appointing Authority refer to subordination in rank and not to that of function. In view of the provisions referred to above, the authority who has been prescribed in the schedule to CCS (CCA) Rules as the disciplinary authority for imposition of major penalties in respect of a grade shall not impose any of these penalties on an official of that grade if he was actually appointed to that grade by an authority who is higher in rank or grade than the former authority.
For example, an official who was appointed by an officer of the Junior Time Scale of the Indian Postal Service, Group A, while holding charge of a Division cannot be punished with any of the major penalties by an officer of PSS Group B though holding the charge of the same division can not be punished with any of the major penalties by an officer of the PSS Group `B though holding charge of the same Division. Any such orders passed by a lower authority are void and are liable to be set aside. When these punishment orders are declared void by the Court or are set aside by the appellate authority or by the President due to violation of constitutional/statutory provision, Government have to incur unnecessary expenditure in the shape of arrears of pay and allowances. It is, therefore, desirable that before any action is initiated under the CCS (CCA) Rules, with a view to imposing any of the major penalties on an official, it should first be verified by the present disciplinary authority whether or not he is lower in rank than the officer who actually appointed the official. In case the appointing authority is of higher rank than the present disciplinary authority, the fact should be reported to the Department/Ministry concerned for issue of Presidents orders nominating another officer to act as the disciplinary authority in that particular case. While reporting the matter to Government a specific recommendation as to the officer who may be nominated to act as the disciplinary authority should be made.
These instructions may kindly be circulated to all disciplinary authorities for strict observance to ensure that punishment orders are passed only by the competent authorities.
(D.G.P&T. Memo No.44/6/59-Disc., dated the 7th August, 1959)
9. The counsel for the Applicant has also submitted that his past absences were wrongly considered as the Respondents have already regularized them. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No.11/2004 Ex-Constable Harish Chander Vs. Commissioner of Police wherein it was held as under:-
18. We find that before inflicting the impugned penalty of dismissal, no prior show-cause notice envisaged by the Rule has been issued or served upon the petitioner.
19. To put it succinctly, there are two errors committed. The first is the non-issuance of any show-cause notice envisaged by the Rule. The second is a misdirected approach to treat as if in the past there were 11 instances of being unauthorized absence. The past instances are only 2 in number pertaining to the year 1994 and 1995. This has resulted in an erroneous conclusion being drawn that the petitioner is a chronic, habitual and incorrigible type of person who resorts to indiscipline and irresponsible behavior with frequency. This would obviously be incorrect.
20. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition quashing the impugned order dated 12.8.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and allow OA No.2924/2002 filed by the petitioner, but not in terms of the prayer made by the petitioner in the said OA.
21. We quash the order of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, being the order dated 31.7.2002 as also the order dated 4.10.2002 passed by the Appellate Authority.
22. Noting the taint in the proceedings afore-noted, we direct the Disciplinary Authority to issue an appropriate show-cause notice and serve the same upon the petitioner and while so doing be conscious of the fact that there are not 11 but only 2 past instances where the petitioner remained absent from duty without prior intimation and the period for the said 2 misdemeanours is about 18 days in one case and only 1 day in the other. Would that constitute chronic default would be a factor to be considered by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority would also factor in the decision while issuing the show-cause notice that pertaining to the last episode of being unauthorisedly absent, the report of the Inquiry Officer is that in a inchoate form, intimation of absence was intimated by the brother of the petitioner and that as a matter of fact the petitioner was physically disabled and has medical papers from a government hospital, genuineness whereof has been accepted by the Inquiry Officer.
23. Fresh decision would be taken after the show-cause notice is issued.
10. He has also submitted that the Disciplinary Authority failed to appreciate that the punishment of removal is highly excessive, harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the Applicant. In this regard, he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in A. Prasada Rao Vs. G.M. South Central Railways and Ors. (ATR 1991 (2) CAT 318) wherein it has been held as under:
removing the petitioner from service is a major penalty in the Administrative Laws. In criminal case, death and transportation of life are major penalties. In awarding such punishment courts will taken all precautions weigh evidence carefully and award punishment in proportion to the seriousness of offence in awarding the punishment of death or transportation of life not only the persons aho receive punishment but his family set up will also be affected very badly especially in poor classes and their children become orphans. So while awarding such punishment, the courts will take all precautions carefully for such offences to its seriousness.
11 Further, he has stated that if the respondents had any doubts of the genuineness of his, he should have been given an opportunity to produce the relevant evidence pertaining to the medical rest papers for proper appreciation of the whole controversy so that the applicant could have produced the doctors as a defence witness.
12. The respondents in their reply submitted that the applicant has absented himself from duty unauthorizedly for a period of 273 days and 9 hours willfully w.e.f. 15.6.2007 to 15.3.2008. During his absence period 3 absentee notices were sent to him by registered post on 25.6.2007, 20.7.2007 and 23.8.2007 sent but he did not join the duty. Thereafter, a special messenger through HC Kamal Singh was sent to his residence to find out the actual position of the Applicant but the applicant told him that due to illness he could not report for duty and also failed to inform the department. The disciplinary authority was again sent HC Ram Mehar to his residence on 11.12.2007 to direct the constable to join his duty but he told him that he is undergoing treatment from a private doctor and therefore, he cannot resume duty. The disciplinary authority also considered his past absentee record which shows that he is a habitual absentee and incorrigible type of person as he has absented himself on 9 different occasions in the past which have been treated as commuted leave, LKD, NSD etc.
13. Further the Respondents have stated that during departmental proceedings, EO summoned the applicant thrice on 03.03.2008, 10.3.2008 and 15.03.2008 to attend the departmental enquiry but he did not turn up. Accordingly, inquiry officer has completed the enquiry ex-parte against the applicant after observing the due procedure as per rules/instructions on the subject and submitted his findings concluding therein that the charge against the applicant was fully proved. A copy of the inquiry order was furnished to the applicant on 05.9.2008 for submitting his written representation, if any but he failed to do so. Thereafter, he was reminded 6 times, but there was no reaction from the Applicant. Finally, disciplinary authority imposed upon the applicant penalty of dismissal from service as he has violated the provisions contained in Rule 19(5) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and also SO No.111 of Delhi Police.
14. They have also refuted the contention of the Applicant regarding the incompetency of the disciplinary authority to pass the punishment order. They have submitted that as per Section 21 of Delhi Police Act, 1978, and Rule 4 of Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980, JAG officers can exercise the powers of disciplinary authority. They have also stated that Absenteeism in the disciplined force is a serious matter because it cripples the entire administration of the police department. Each and every police personnel is deployed for duty with specific tasks. It is like a chain and if one link of chain is missed, it jeopardises the entire security system. If police personnel are found absent from duty, it will weakens the whole security system which is quite serious. They have therefore, submitted that there was a serious lapse on the part of the applicant and therefore he is unfit to be retained in the service. More once, during his absence period three absentee notices were sent to his residence with the direction to resume duty immediately or in case he was sick, to appear before the Chief Medical Officer, Karnal for his second medical examination. Despite notices, he neither resumed duty nor appeared for second medical examination. Thereafter, he has given several opportunities to appear before the enquiry officer but that he did not do so. Therefore, inquiry officer has to proceed enquiry ex-parte and found the charge against him proved. Disciplinary authority also gave him opportunity to submit written representation against the findings of the EO before the final decision is taken in the matter. But, again he refused to do so. He has submitted only his appeal against the disciplinary authority wherein he considered that he was sick but he could not submit any medical certificate to support his case.
15. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and perused documents available on record. We have also considered the various judgments relied on by the learned counsel. In our considered view, the conduct of the applicant cannot acceptable in a disciplined force. The police personnel are governed by the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and they have to abide by those rules. Rule 19 (5) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, provides as under:
19. Grant of leave on medical certificate to Gazetted and non-Gazetted Government servants.
to (4) x x x x (5) The grant of medical certificate under this rule does not in itself confer upon the Government servant concerned any right to leave; the medical certificate shall be forwarded to the authority competent to grant leave and orders of that authority awaited. In addition, the respondents have issued specific instructions vide S.O. 111 reiterating the aforesaid rule position.
16. According to the charge against the applicant, he suddenly stopped attending his duty w.e.f. 16.06.2007. The disciplinary authority sent three absentee notices to him by registered post and one through the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, Haryana who reported that the applicant was living in Delhi but his address was not known. In any way, it is not the case of the applicant that he did not receive those absentee notices. However, in a most defiant manner the applicant refused to report for duty or even sent an application for leave on medical grounds in support of his plea that he was undergoing treatment. As submitted by the respondents, in a disciplined police force, such unauthorized and willful absenteeism cannot be tolerated. His past record also shows that he was a habitual absentee and an incorrigible type of person. The applicant again refused to participate in the enquiry proceedings and the disciplinary authority has to direct the enquiry officer to proceed against him ex-pare as the enquiry was getting delayed indefinitely. The Enquiry Officer proved the charge against the applicant during the enquiry and the disciplinary authority agreeing with the same imposed upon him the punishment of dismissal from service. It is only at that stage that the applicant realized the consequence of his unauthorized absence and not responding to the various directions by the respondents, by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority has also rejected his appeal.
17. The grounds taken by the applicant to challenge the impugned punishment of dismissal imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority and the order of rejection of his appeal by the appellate authority are frivolous. If he was genuinely sick, he had to follow the prescribed rules and instructions issued by the respondents in that regard. Rules are applicable not only to the respondents but also to the applicant. Ignoring the directions of the respondents and keeping silence, on the plea that he was sick, would not help the applicant in any manner.
18. His further contention that he was appointed by an IPS officer and the punishment order was issued by DANIPS officer is baseless. and also against the provisions contained in Section 21 (1) of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 which provides as under:
Power of punishment. Subject to the provisions of article 311 of the Constitution and the rules, the Commissioner of Police, Additional Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Principal of the Police Training College or of the Police Training School or any other officer of equivalent rank, may award to any police officer of subordinate rank any of the following punishments, namely:-
dismissal;
to (g) x x x x
19. The D.G. P&T Memo No. 44/6/59-Disc. dated 07.08.1959 relied upon by the applicant has also no application in the present case as the Deputy Commissioner of Police, 111 Bn. DAP, Delhi Police is not below the rank of the appointing authority of the applicant which is also the Dy. Commissioner of Police. The judgment of the High Court in Ex. Constable Harish Chanders case (supra) or the Apex Courts judgment in the case of A. Prasada Rao (supra) relied upon by the applicant will not come to his rescue as the facts of the those cases are quite different.
20. On the contrary, the Apex Court in a number of cases deprecated the interference of Court/Tribunal in the orders of punishment of removal/dismissal from service inflicted upon the delinquent employees based on the proven charge of unauthorized absence.
21. In State of U.P. and Others Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and another (AIR 1996 SC 736), the charge against the delinquent police constable was that he absented himself from duty on several occasions and punishment of removal from service was imposedwhich came to be challenged by the delinquent police constable before U.P.Public Service Tribunal and the Tribunal maintained the same. The order of the tribunal confirming the order of removal came to be challenged by the delinquent police constable before High Court and the High Court quashed the order of removal and directed the opposite party to reinstate the delinquent therein on duty. The State of U.P. challenged the order of the High Court before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
We are clearly of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in modifying the punishment while concurring with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. The High Court failed to bear in mind that the first respondent was a police constable and was serving in a disciplined force demanding strict adherence to the rules and procedures more than any other department. Having noticed the fact that the first respondent has absented himself from duty without leave on several occasions, we are unable to appreciate the High Court's observation that his absence from duty would not amount to such a grave charge.
22. In State of Meghalaya and Ors. Vs. Mecken Singh N.Marak (AIR 2008 SC 2868), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
The jurisdiction of the High Court, to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited and cannot be exercised without sufficient reasons. The High Court, although has jurisdiction in appropriate case, to consider the question in regard to the quantum of punishment, but it has a limited role to play. The High Courts, in exercise of powers under Article 226, do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons therefor. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority unless shocking to the conscience of the Court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. In the impugned order of the High Court no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was considereddisproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice.
23. In State of Punjab and Others Vs. Sukhwinder Singh (2007 (10) SC 511), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
The High court was right in noting that the respondent was a member of a disciplined force and that absence from duty was unbecoming of a member of such force. It was in that light that the High Court should have looked at the repeated acts of the respondent's absence from duty. The fact that the respondent is a member of the Scheduled Caste is neither here nor there for the purposes of considering whether or not he is guilty of misconduct and breach of discipline, nor the fact that he had gone to give his pay to his mother and was detained on account of her illness. It is necessary that members of the police forces should attend the duties which they have been allocated and not absent themselves. This is a paramount public interest that must overweigh private considerations. The High Court was, therefore, in patent error in looking benignly at the numerous acts of absence of the respondent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed as under:-
That the order of dismissal did not use the mantra of gravest act of misconduct is not determinative. The substance of that conclusion is to be found in that order. When a policeman is repeatedly absent from duty, it cannot but be reasonably concluded that there is incorrigibility in his continued misconduct.
24. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in the case and accordingly the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dr.Ramesh Chandra Panda) (G.George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/rb/