Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jawahar Lal vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 11 June, 2020
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWPOA No. 392 of 2019
Decided on: 11.6.2020
.
__________________________________________________________________
Jawahar Lal ...........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. ..........Respondents
__________________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Dutta, Advocate, through
Video Conferencing.
For the Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Additional
Advocate General and Mr. Kunal
Thakur, Deputy Advocate General,
through Video Conferencing.
__________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
A regular departmental enquiry was ordered against the petitioner namely Sh. Jawahar Lal, No. 715/779, while he was posted as Constable in 1st H.P.A.P Battalion Junga vide an office order/endorsement No. 21809-13 dated 21.1.2000 for willful and unauthorized absence from duty. The Enquiry Officer found the absence of the petitioner from the duty indicative of indiscipline and negligence and as such, held him guilty and accordingly, forwarded the case for further action in accordance with law.
2. After receipt of the enquiry report, Superintendent of Police Vigilance Southern Range, Shimla, issued show case notice to the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 20:23:26 :::HCHP 2petitioner vide letter No.3300 dated 16.8.2001 (Annexure P-2), calling upon him to show cause as to why punishment of forfeiture of three years of .
permanent service should not be awarded. The petitioner filed reply to the aforesaid show cause notice (Annexure P-3) stating therein that since there is no legal binding to get the treatment from government medical institution, the Enquiry Officer ought to have considered medical certificate issued by the private doctors.
3. Disciplinary Authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Southern Range, Shimla, having taken note of reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice, took lenient view and awarded penalty of forfeiture of one year's permanent service instead of proposed punishment of forfeiture of three years permanent service for indiscipline and negligence.
4. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with imposition of aforesaid penalty, the petitioner after a lapse of two years, filed statutory appeal before the Inspector General Police, Vigilance, Southern Range, Shimla-2, H.P. (Annexure P-4). Since aforesaid statutory appeal came to be preferred after inordinate delay of two years, appellate authority, vide order dated 21.10.2003, dismissed the same on the ground of limitation.
After a lapse of 5 ½ years from the date of passing of aforesaid order by the appellate authority, petitioner herein again filed revision/mercy ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 20:23:26 :::HCHP 3 petition before the Director General police i.e. Annexure P-6, claiming therein that since penalty awarded to him is on higher side, same .
deserves to be reviewed. However, vide order dated 18.6.2009 (Annexure P-7), Director General of Police, Shimla dismissed the revision/mercy petition having been filed by the petitioner. In the aforesaid background, petitioner approached this Court by way of writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set-aside orders dated 18.6.2019, however, such petition was transferred to Erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 2.3.2015. Now, once again after abolishment of the Tribunal, matter has come up for final hearing before this Court.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings and as such, no interference is called for. Careful perusal of material available on record clearly reveals that the petitioner, who is a member of disciplined force, came to be charge sheeted for willful and unauthorized absence from the duty. Though, the petitioner claimed before the Enquiry Officer that he was unable to come on duty on account of illness, but he was unable to place on record any cogent and convincing evidence with regard to medical treatment, if any, received by him ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 20:23:26 :::HCHP 4 during the period of his willful and unauthorized absence from the duty.
The petitioner though placed on record some documents suggestive of .
the fact that he took treatment from some private hospital/practitioner, but the Enquiry Officer found such documents not to be genuine and accordingly, recommended for disciplinary action.
6. The Superintendent of Police, having taken note of the reply to the show-cause notice filed by the petitioner, took lenient view and only awarded punishment/penalty of forfeiture of one year of permanent service instead of proposed punishment of forfeiture of three years permanent service. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, he after passing of aforesaid order dated 16.8.2001, kept mum for two years, whereafter he vide representation dated 5.8.2003, addressed to the Inspector General of Police, Vigilance, Southern Range, sought quashing of aforesaid penalty awarded against him. Since representation/appeal was filed after a gap of two years, Appellate Authority taking note of provisions of P.P.R. 16.30 (2), dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. Perusal of aforesaid order clearly reveals that no plausible reasons/explanation, if any, ever came to be rendered on record by the petitioner qua the delay in maintaining the appeal laying therein challenge to order dated 15.9.2001, whereby penalty of forfeiture of one year permanent service came to be imposed on petitioner. After lapse of ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 20:23:26 :::HCHP 5 more than five years, petitioner again filed representation/mercy petition to the Director General of Police (Vigilance) praying therein to review the .
order of punishment awarded in his case, but same was also rejected on the ground of limitation.
7. Having carefully perused material available on record, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the petitioner has not only been negligent in performing his official duties, rather he was quite callous and negligent while prosecuting his statutory remedies available to him after imposition of penalty in disciplinary proceedings.
r Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record on behalf of the petitioner for inordinate delay of two years and five years respectively in filing the statutory appeal and mercy petition, no fault, if any, can be found with the order rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation passed by the appellate authority and Director General of Police, respectively.
8. Leaving everything aside, this Court having carefully perused/ scanned documents available on record is unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that during the period of unauthorized and willful absence from the duty, the petitioner was not keeping well and was in the constant treatment of the doctors.
Documents, as referred herein above, do not make any head and tail ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 20:23:26 :::HCHP 6 and nowhere suggest that petitioner was suffering from some serious disease on account of which he could not attend his duties. Though as .
per own admission of the petitioner, he remained ill/absent w.e.f 12.8.1999 to 3.11.1999, 4.11.1999 to 20.1.2000 and 21.1.2000 to 10.4.2001, but medical evidence adduced on record by him in support of his contention that he was suffering from back ache during the period of willful and unauthorized absence, clearly suggests that such medical certificates were procured from the private practitioners after initiation of disciplinary proceedings and as such, no much reliance could be placed upon the same.
9. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner after having fallen ill repeatedly informed the department with regard to his illness and also prayed for extension of leave, but there is no material worth credence available on record suggestive of the fact that the petitioner after having fallen ill had informed the department and had also prayed for extension of leave.
10. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the appellate Authority and as such, present petition fails and dismissed accordingly.
11th June, 2020 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit Judge
::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2020 20:23:26 :::HCHP