Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"In the light of above observation, we are inclined to allow this application. We shall quash the order of dismissal forthwith. We direct the authority to reinstate the petitioner within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from communication of this order. We make it clear that having regard to the factual background of the case, the petitioner shall not get any back wages from date of dismissal till his reinstatement, but, that period cannot be counted towards his retiral benefits. We also make it clear both on the ground of unauthorised absence and for material suppression of fact, the petitioner is liable to be penalized and we leave it the authority to impose any other punishment in accordance with rule for those charges and that should be done within three months after reinstatement of the petitioner.

12. It appears that thereafter final order dated 04.08.2010 was passed in disciplinary proceedings no.2 of 1999, after the Petitioner had joined the work pursuant to the order of the Tribunal. A revised order was passed wherein he was awarded punishment for those charges enumerated with regard to unauthorised absence of one day from duties ie., on 08.03,1993 p.m. to 09.03.1993 p.m. and for suppression of material facts. He has been, in fact, by the final order awarded the punishment of reduction to minimum basic pay of his Grade ie., `9600/- including Grade Pay from the existing pay of `11,180/- including Grade Pay.

27. Learned Counsel for the State-Respondents submits that from the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, it is apparent that the Petitioner had gone on unauthorised absence from 08.3.99 (PM) to 9.3.99 (PM); which is crystal clear from the reply of the Petitioner. It is revealed from the reply that while the Petitioner had taken command to get himself treated for sickness that he had left his place of posting without any information or order sanctioning him leave or permission of the authority concerned, on receiving some alleged information that his family was involved in criminal case. Counsel for the State-Respondents would argue that the first and foremost obligation of the Petitioner as a member of the disciplined Police Force was to have informed his superior authorities about any matter which had compelled him to leave the place of his posting. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner had received information when he had taken command for treatment of his sickness. Hence, he had ample opportunity to inform the superior authorities about the compelling circumstances in which he had been implicated in the criminal case and to surrender before the Court. Therefore, his plea that he had no opportunity to inform the authorities, is unbelievable.

28. As regards the question of punishment being highly disproportionate to the charge is concerned, it is vehemently argued that the Petitioner was not only charged for one day's unauthorised absence in the disciplinary enquiry but also for his involvement in the criminal case during his unauthorised absence from the command. It is apparent that the authorities had taken much lenient view in reinstating him; otherwise such a conduct of a member of the disciplined force would demand not less than dismissal or removal from the service.