Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. 7186-90/ASIP-III Bn. dt. 20.7.07 A copy of absentee notice was sent at his residence through Regd. Post as well as S.P. Karnal (HR). S.P. Karnal reported that the mother of Const. Subhash told him that her son is living in Delhi alongwith family and his address is not known to her.
3. 8573-77/ASIP-III Bn. dt. 23.8.07 A copy of absentee notice was sent at his residence through Regd. Post, which is deemed to be served upon the Const. otherwise the same would have been returned to this office undelivered with the remarks of postal authority. But it is not received back in this office.

His Past absentee record also shows that he is a habitual absentee and incorrigible type of person as he has absented himself on 09 different occasions in the past and despite decided the period as commuted leave, L.K.D., N.S.D. etc., but he did not mend himself.

The above act on the part of Const. Subhash Chander, No.2804/DAP amounts to gross misconduct, negligence, carelessness and dereliction in the discharge of his official duties which renders him liable to be dealt with departmentally under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980.

11 Further, he has stated that if the respondents had any doubts of the genuineness of his, he should have been given an opportunity to produce the relevant evidence pertaining to the medical rest papers for proper appreciation of the whole controversy so that the applicant could have produced the doctors as a defence witness.

12. The respondents in their reply submitted that the applicant has absented himself from duty unauthorizedly for a period of 273 days and 9 hours willfully w.e.f. 15.6.2007 to 15.3.2008. During his absence period 3 absentee notices were sent to him by registered post on 25.6.2007, 20.7.2007 and 23.8.2007 sent but he did not join the duty. Thereafter, a special messenger through HC Kamal Singh was sent to his residence to find out the actual position of the Applicant but the applicant told him that due to illness he could not report for duty and also failed to inform the department. The disciplinary authority was again sent HC Ram Mehar to his residence on 11.12.2007 to direct the constable to join his duty but he told him that he is undergoing treatment from a private doctor and therefore, he cannot resume duty. The disciplinary authority also considered his past absentee record which shows that he is a habitual absentee and incorrigible type of person as he has absented himself on 9 different occasions in the past which have been treated as commuted leave, LKD, NSD etc.

to (4) x x x x (5) The grant of medical certificate under this rule does not in itself confer upon the Government servant concerned any right to leave; the medical certificate shall be forwarded to the authority competent to grant leave and orders of that authority awaited. In addition, the respondents have issued specific instructions vide S.O. 111 reiterating the aforesaid rule position.

16. According to the charge against the applicant, he suddenly stopped attending his duty w.e.f. 16.06.2007. The disciplinary authority sent three absentee notices to him by registered post and one through the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, Haryana who reported that the applicant was living in Delhi but his address was not known. In any way, it is not the case of the applicant that he did not receive those absentee notices. However, in a most defiant manner the applicant refused to report for duty or even sent an application for leave on medical grounds in support of his plea that he was undergoing treatment. As submitted by the respondents, in a disciplined police force, such unauthorized and willful absenteeism cannot be tolerated. His past record also shows that he was a habitual absentee and an incorrigible type of person. The applicant again refused to participate in the enquiry proceedings and the disciplinary authority has to direct the enquiry officer to proceed against him ex-pare as the enquiry was getting delayed indefinitely. The Enquiry Officer proved the charge against the applicant during the enquiry and the disciplinary authority agreeing with the same imposed upon him the punishment of dismissal from service. It is only at that stage that the applicant realized the consequence of his unauthorized absence and not responding to the various directions by the respondents, by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority has also rejected his appeal.