Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE B U R D W A N"

After issuance of the said charge sheet, enquiry officer was appointed who conducted an enquiry and found that the Charge of unauthorised absence from duty for the period of 120 days has been established. Upon considering the charge levelled against the petitioner and also the findings of the enquiry officer, Superintendent of Police, Burdwan passed the final order of punishment on 28th March, 2003 withholding 14 Annual increments with future effect. The said Superintendent of Police confirmed the period of suspension and further directed that the period of unauthorised absence from duty should be treated as extraordinary leave. The final order of punishment passed by the Superintendent of Police, Burdwan dated 28th March, 2003 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

The learned advocate representing the petitioner specifically submitted before this court that the disciplinary authority upon considering the charges mentioned in the charge sheet issued to the petitioner herein and also considering the findings of the enquiry officer imposed the major punishment by withholding 14 annual increments. The petitioner herein was charged for 120 days unauthorised absence from duty. The enquiry officer also found the petitioner guilty for the aforesaid unauthorised absence for a period of 120 days and the disciplinary authority agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer inflicted the aforesaid punishment withholding his 14 annual increments with future effect.

Mrs. Chaitali Bhattacharyya, learned advocate of the respondents submitted that the disciplinary authority namely, Superintendent of Police, Burdwan only considered the charge of gross misconduct of the petitioner due to unauthorised absence of 120 days from duty and did not consider the charge relating to dereliction of duty unbecoming of a member of police force. Mrs. Bhattacharyya submitted that unauthorised absence in a disciplined force should be dealt with strictly. Mrs. Bhattacharyya further submitted that consideration of past conduct of the charged employee cannot and does not amount to double jeopardy.

In the present case also, the enquiry officer on appreciation of evidence did not hold that the absence of the petitioner was wilful. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the enquiry officer regarding unauthorised absence of the petitioner from duty for a period of 120 days but did not hold that such absence was wilful specially, when neither in the charge sheet was it alleged that the unauthorised absence of the petitioner was wilful nor even the enquiry officer on appreciation of the evidence held that the aforesaid unauthorised absence of the petitioner was wilful.