Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ex. Head Constable Mukesh Giri vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 20 October, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No. 3746 of 2011 Misc. Application No.2752/2011 This the 20th day of October, 2011 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Ex. Head Constable Mukesh Giri No.63/ND S/o Malkhan Giri, R/o Village & PO Dutt Nagar, PS Pilana, Distt. Baghpat (UP). Applicant ( By Shri Nilansh Gaur, Advocate ) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Commissioner of Police, Police Hqrs., MSO Buildign, IP Estate, New Delhi-110002. 2. Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range, Police Hqrs., MSO Building, IP Estate, New Delhi-110002, 3. Addl. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi District, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Respondents O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Mukesh Giri, a Head Constable in Delhi Police, sequel to a regular departmental enquiry held against him has since been dismissed from service vide orders dated 04.08.2009 passed by the disciplinary authority in that behalf for his long unauthorized absence, as also for his having remained absent on 81 different occasions earlier in point of time. Appeal preferred against the order aforesaid has since been rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 16.12.2009. It is against these two orders that the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been filed by him.
2. The applicant was departmentally tried on the following summary of allegations:
It is alleged against HC Mukesh Giri No.63/ND (PIS No.28823038), that while posted at P.S. Parliament Street, he was required to report for duty on 31.01.08 at 8 A.M. but he did not turn up, as such he was marked absent vide D.D. No. 20B dated 31.01.08 P.S. Parliament Street. Two absentee notices were issued to him at his native place vide no.1594/S.I.P./NDD dated 19.02.08 and 3143/S.I.P/NDD dated 02.04.08, with the direction to resume his duty, failing which necessary departmental action will be taken against him. Both the absentee notices were received by him, but he did not bother and is still running absent unauthorized, in utter violation of C.C.S. (Leave) Rules, 1972 and S.O. No.111 of Delhi Police.
On scrutiny of his service record, it has been found that he remained absent on 81 different occasions in the past for which he was awarded censure, L.W.P., major punishment etc. but he could not mend his way and still in the habit of absenting himself willfully/unauthorized. Records of the case, and in particular, the enquiry report, the orders passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities, would reveal that while posted at PS Parliament Street, New Delhi, the applicant was required to report for duty on 31.01.2008 at 8 a.m., but he did not turn up, and as such he was marked absent vide DD No.20-B dated 31.01.2008. Two absentee notices were issued to him at his native village on 19.02.2008 and 02.04.2008 with direction to resume his duties, or intimate the reason of his unauthorized absence, failing which necessary departmental action would be taken against him. The applicant received both the absentee notices, but would not respond to the same. He would neither join duties nor even mention the circumstances under which he was unable to do so. The enquiry officer recorded statements of three prosecution witnesses, whereafter charge was framed and served upon the applicant. He was asked to submit the list of defence witnesses as also his defence statement, which he would not do. He, however, later submitted his written defence statement claiming therein that both he and his wife were ill, and that the marriage of his daughter had been fixed for 17.04.2009. The disciplinary authority tentatively agreeing with the view taken by the enquiry officer holding him guilty, served a copy of the enquiry report upon him on 13.05.2009 with the direction to submit his representation within fifteen days. The applicant would not submit any representation. He, however, sent a letter through registered post in which he requested that two weeks time may be granted him to file representation. Thereafter, a letter dated 22.07.2009 was sent to SHO, Parliament Street through special messenger with the direction to produce the applicant before the disciplinary authority on 03.07.2009. The applicant, however, was not found present in his village. Last opportunity was given to the applicant on 16.07.2009, which was noted by him on 21.07.2009, but he would still not submit any representation. No representation was made by him till such time order dismissing him from service came to be passed.
3. It appears that the applicant has raised only one plea before the disciplinary authority, which is repeated before us as well, that the applicant was sick and thus unable to resume his duties. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the disciplinary authority by observing that the applicant had submitted some photocopies of medical papers along with his defence statement to the enquiry officer on 22.02.2009, from a perusal whereof, it would reveal that the same were not complete. The said authority further observed that some medical papers did not have any rubber stamp of the medical officers, besides the applicant having not submitted the medical papers to the department at the appropriate stage, and that some of the medical papers had been issued by private doctors, who were not authorized medical practitioners, or from any specialized hospital, and further that the applicant never informed the department about his illness, nor obtained prior permission of the competent authority to avail medical rest, thus violating provisions of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and S.O. No.111 of Delhi Police. Mention of rule 19(5) of the Rules of 1972 has been made, according to which, grant of medical certificate under the said rule would not in itself confer upon the Government servant concerned any right to leave, and the medical certificate shall be forwarded to the authority competent to grant leave, and orders of the authority shall have to be awaited, which was not done by the applicant.
4. Having heard the learned counsel representing the applicant and with his assistance examining the records of the case, we find no merit at all in this Original Application. The only point canvassed before us as regards the illness of the applicant has been adequately dealt with by the concerned authority, and would call for no interference. The applicant, it may be recalled, had remained absent on 81 different occasions earlier in point of time, and for some of his absences, he had been inflicted punishments as well, which were of censure, leave without pay, and even major punishments.
5. Police is a disciplined force and a person as the applicant, who, as has been held, is a habitual absentee and incorrigible, in our view, has been rightly visited with the penalty of dismissal from service.
6. Finding no merit in this Original Application, the same is dismissed in limine.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/