Gujarat High Court
Sabatsinh Mansinh Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 29 June, 2018
Author: Mohinder Pal
Bench: Mohinder Pal
C/SCA/23887/2006 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23887 of 2006
==========================================================
SABATSINH MANSINH PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
HL PATEL ADVOCATES(2034) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR SHIRISH GOHIL, AGP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3,4
RULE SERVED(64) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Date : 29/06/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent No.1 dated 05.07.2006, vide which, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 03.03.2004, vide which, his appeal against the dismissal has been declined by the Director General of Police. He has also challenged the Revisional Order which has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a constable on 21.11.1983 in the Police Department. He served as constable for 15 years in Navsari Town Police Station. Thereafter, he was transferred to Valsad District. Before dismissal, he has served for Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/23887/2006 ORDER four years in Chota-Udepur Police Station as Police Constable. Throughout his career, there was not even a single allegation made against him or any act of indiscipline. On 08.09.2003, the petitioner received a show-cause notice from the respondent No.2, asking him why he should not be removed from the post of the Constable. The allegation made against him in the said notice was that he was absent in service from 26.05.2001 to 03.07.2001 i.e. for a period of 40 days. The petitioner failed to respond this notice, despite sufficient time having been granted. Ultimately, the petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 21.10.2003. Appeal and Revision against this order was also dismissed. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to set aside the order of dismissal and subsequent orders. Thereafter, respondents filed an Affidavit-in- Reply stating that the petitioner is a habitual absentee. He has absented for 25 times out of which seven punishments have been awarded to him. He has failed to give any explanation for his absence for a period of 40 days and in absence of any defense, the order of dismissal is required to be upheld.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the absence of the petitioner was due to acute head ache (Chronic Vertigo) from which the petitioner was suffering at the relevant point of time. It is further submitted Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/23887/2006 ORDER that the daughter of the petitioner expired during pendency of this petition and the petitioner could not furnish his defense before the Inquiry Officer. Under these circumstances, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the guilt of the petitioner. While relying upon these submissions, learned counsel has prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has controverted these contentions by referring to the written statement placed on record, wherein, it has been observed that the petitioner was a habitual absentee and was awarded punishment various times. Under these circumstance, the present petition was liable to be dismissed.
5. This Court has considered the submissions made by both the sides. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Constable and was working as a Constable in the Police Department. He is a member of a disciplined force. Though the petitioner has not mentioned, however, respondents have filed detailed reply, wherein, it has been stated that the petitioner was a habitual absentee. He was absent on as many as 25 occasions. For this absentism he was awarded punishment as many as seven times.
6. It could be seen that before dismissal, the Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/23887/2006 ORDER petitioner was served with a show-cause notice, wherein, it was mentioned that he remain absent for a period of 40 days. Reasoning given by the petitioner is acute headache (Chronic Vertigo) and as such, he could not remain present on duty.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner is having a Medical Certificate of the petitioner. According to the Medical Certificate, the petitioner was suffering from aforementioned disease of headache. This Court has closely perused the Medical Certificate. The Certificate is without signature of the patient who was examined by the Doctor. Even if, the petitioner was not in a position to inform the respondents, any other member of a family of the petitioner could have informed the concerned authorities regarding inability of the petitioner to attend his duty. Unauthorized absence for which the petitioner has been dismissed from service is not an isolated incident. He was found absent 25 times and seven punishments have been awarded to him. Keeping in view the nature of job and sincerity shown by the petitioner, no leniency can be shown while awarding punishment.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition, being devoid of any merits is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(MOHINDER PAL, J.) PALAK Page 4 of 4