Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant, Shri A.N. Singh and the learned counsel for the Respondents, Mrs. Rashmi Chopra. We have also perused the departmental enquiry file made available by the Respondents. The first part of the charge that proved against the Applicant in the departmental proceedings was that he had absented himself from duty unauthorisedly on five different occasions and from the 6th spell of absence onwards, he never reported for duty. It is seen that in the year 2007 alone, he was absent for 24 days from 02.07.2007, 3 days from 03.06.2007, 38 days from 22.07.2007. Lastly, he was running absent from 06.10.2007. The second part of the charge which has been proved against him was that he was a habitual absentee and he had absented himself from duty earlier on 60 occasions for which minor punishments have been given to him but he did not mend his ways. It is noticed that the only reason given by the Applicant for his continual and long spells of absence was his ill health and financial hardship which is quite vague. He has no explanation as to what kind of illness he was suffering from for remaining absent from duty for such long spells. It is not the case of the Applicant that he had applied for leave on medical grounds and got it sanctioned. Even in the present OA, he has not explained as to why he was remaining absent from duty from 25.06.2007 onwards. As rightly submitted by the Respondent-Delhi Police, in a disciplined force unauthorized absence of officials cannot be tolerated at any cost. Such unauthorized absence disturbs the entire schedule of the police station/place of the posting of the official. After perusing his absentee statements of past and present, there cannot be any iota of doubt that the Applicant was not interested to perform his duty. Rather, absenting himself from duty without prior intimation has become his habit.