Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS It is alleged that Const. (Exe.) Surender Kumar, No. 1535/C PIS No. 28880652 while posted at P.S. Darya Ganj was marked absent vide DD No. 60B dated 03.03.2009. During the period of absence two absentee notices were issued to him vide Nos. 7456-61/SIP/AC/C dated 25.03.2009 and No. 12944-47/SIP/AC/C dated 04.06.2009 and the same were delivered at his permanent address through S.P. Alwar Rajasthan & SHO Darya Ganj, Delhi. He resumed his duty vide DD No. 51B dated 22.07.2009 after absenting himself willfully and unauthorisedly for a period of 140 days, 23 hours & 15 minutes. On resuming duties an explanation was called from the Constable for his unauthorized absent from duties vide this office No. 17631/SIP/AC/C dated 20.08.2009 and in his reply to the explanation he had stated that he was suffering from jaundice and he went to his native place in Rajasthan and undergone treatment from Ayurvedic Dispensary and also produced medical papers of his treatment. He was called in orderly room but he did not turn up in orderly room despite issue of 02 notices. Further he was again marked absent vide DD No. 32B dated 04.10.2009 and absentee notice vide this office No. 23609-12/SIP/AC/C dated 14.12.2009 was issued at his permanent address. The contents of the absentee notice dated 14.12.2009 was got noted from him through SHO/Darya Ganj, Delhi and S.P. Alwar (Rajasthan) on 31.12.2009. He resumed his duties vide DD No. 46B dated 06.02.2010 after absenting himself for a period of 125 days, 03 hours & 10 minute sillfully & unauthorisedly without giving any intimation/information to the department which is a violation of S.O. No. 111 and Rule 19.5 of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972.

No. DD No. & Dt. Of absence DD No. & Dt. Of arrival Period of absence Days Hours Minutes 1 60B dated 3.3.2009 PS Daryaganj 51B dated 22.7.2009 PS Daryaganj 140 23 15 2 32B dated 4.10.2009 PS Daryaganj 46B dated 6.2.2010 PS Daryaganj 125 3 10 Three absentee notices were issued to you vide (1) No.7456-61/SIP(AC)/C dated 25.3.2009, (2) No. 1294447/SIP/AC/C dated 4.6.2009 and (3) No.2360912/SIP(AC)/C dated 14.12.2009 with the directions to resume you duty at once failing which departmental action will be taken against you and in case of illness you should report to Chief Medical Officer, Alwar (Rajasthan) for second medical opinion. The above absentee notices delivered to you through S.P. Alwar District (Rajasthan) which were duly received by you under you proper receipt but you did not bother to report for duty and remained absent wilfully and unauthorizedly and without any intimation to the department, which is contravention of SO No. 111 and Ruyle 19.5 of CCS (Level)Rules, 1972.

5. The Enquiry Officer, in his report came to the conclusion that the applicant absented himself from duty on both the aforesaid occasions unauthorisedly. He has also held that the medical certificates issued by a doctor in favour of a Govt. servant does not confer any right upon him to withdraw himself from Government duty on his own accord. As per the provisions contained in S.O. No.111 read with Rule 19(5) of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, one was required to take prior permission of the competent authority to avail medical rest. But in the present case the applicant on both occasions did not do so and absented himself from duty for long spells without any permission or even intimation of his whereabouts. In spite of absentee notices, he refused to join duty. His past service record also reveals that he had absented himself from duty on 31 different occasions without permission. Although all those absences have been regularized, it shows that he is a habitual absentee. The Inquiry Officer, therefore, has held that the aforesaid charge levelled against him stood proved.

6. Tentatively agreeing with the aforesaid findings of the Inquiry Officer, a copy of the Enquiry Officers report was served upon the applicant for submitting his written representation. Even though he received the same, he did not give any reply. The opportunity for personal hearing granted to him was also availed by him. Therefore, the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that he had nothing to say in his defence and he has accepted his guilt. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority considered the relevant documents in the departmental inquiry file such as summary of allegations, statement of PWs, charge and other material and observed that he remained absent from duty wilfully and unauthorisedly without intimation to the department. Police department being an emergency service, such long absences from duty by policemen without any valid reason strikes at the very discipline of the force. He has also observed that in view of the current scenario of the country, Delhi Police department requires most devoted and dedicated persons. He has also held that the applicant has violated the provisions contained in Rule 19(5) of CCS (Leave) Rule, 1980 and SO No. 111 of Delhi Police. Further, the disciplinary authority observed that absenteeism in the force is a very serious matter because it cripples the entire administration of the police department. Each and every police personnel is deployed for duty with a specific task. It is like a chain and if any link of the chain is missing, it jeopardizes the entire system. It is a serious misconduct on the part of the applicant which calls for exemplary punishment. Therefore, the disciplinary authority dismissed the applicant from service with immediate effect vide impugned order dated 27.04.2011. His absence period was also decided as period not spent on duty for all intents and purposes on the principle of no work no pay. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:-