Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Page No.# 3/8

6) In the departmental proceeding the Enquiry Officer, in his Enquiry Report dated 26.12.2013, came to a finding that the charge against the petitioner was proved. In pursuant to the departmental proceeding the petitioner was removed from service, vide the impugned order dated 27.08.2014 and his appeal was rejected vide order dated 31.12.2015.

7) The petitioner's counsel submits that the Enquiry Officer did not consider the medical certificates submitted by the petitioner, nor did he make any finding on the medical certificates. Further, the petitioner was not allowed to cross examination the witness and neither was the statement of the witness recorded in his presence. She further submits that though the charge of the petitioner being unauthorisedly absent had been proved by the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry officer did not make any finding as to whether the unauthorised absence had been intentional or wilful. She also submits that the charge framed against the petitioner has been found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer, only due to the fact that the petitioner had been found to be unauthorisedly absent on earlier occasions, for which he had already been punished. She thus submits that the charge against the petitioner in this case was not proved on the basis of evidence recorded, as reflected in the Enquiry Report, but due to his earlier misconduct.

13) The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the various postal receipts with respect to sending of postal telegram by the petitioner after his initial unauthorised absence, which is at page Nos. 72, 73 & 74 of the writ petition. All the dates of the postal receipts relating to sending of postal telegrams in page Nos. 72, 73 & 74 of the writ petition are prior to the date of absence of petitioner i.e. 12.11.2012. The last postal receipt in page No. 74 is 03.08.2012, while the petitioner was absent w.e.f. 12.11.2012. The above facts imply that no postal telegram had been sent to the respondents by the petitioner and the same gives a lie to the averment made by the petitioner in his written statement of defence.

14) A perusal of the various medical certificates which is reflected in the written statement of the defence does not indicate that the petitioner's wife was suffering from any serious illness. There is also nothing to show that the petitioner's wife was admitted to any Page No.# 5/8 hospital. In fact, the medical examination reports dated 30.12.2012, mentioned in the written statement of defence pertains to examination of the ears of petitioner's wife. The petitioner's wife's medical certificate nearest to the date of the petitioner's date of unauthorised absence, is the petitioner's wife's medical certificate dated 15.11.2012, which states that there was i. A feeling of heaviness in chest ii. Abdominal discomfort iii. Unwell being iv. Palpitation The doctor in the medical certificate dated 15.11.2012 had prescribed 4 different types of tablets to the petitioner's wife, who was being treated as an outdoor patient.

20) In the present case, there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 12.11.2012 till the date of filing of the memorandum of charge.

The medical certificates that have been annexed by the petitioner does not show that the petitioner's wife was suffering from any serious illness and neither was she admitted to any hospital. Further, though the petitioner's counsel had referred to page Nos. 72, 73 & 74 of the writ petition, to show that the postal telegram had been sent to respondent authorities, with regard to the petitioner's unauthorised absence from 12.11.2012, none of the dates in 24 postal telegrams receipts in pages 72, 73 & 74 are beyond the date 03.08.2012, i.e. they are all prior to the date of unauthorised absence of the petitioner. There is also no representation submitted by the petitioner to the respondent authorities with regard to his unauthorised absence and neither did he apply for leave at any time. On considering all the above facts, this Court is of the considered view that the unauthorised absence of the petitioner has been wilful. In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 182, the Apex Court has held that policeman remaining absent from duty for 5 and a half months, without sanctioned leave or prior intimation cannot be retained in service, as his conduct as a member of a disciplined force is reprehensible.