Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Sl.No. Absentee Notice No. Date Received by

1. 3433-36/SIP-NE 22.2.07

2. 7683-86/SIP (Ac) N.E. 16.5.07

3. 4794-96/SIP-IX-BN DAP 2.11.07 Himself on 20.11.07

4. 88-91-ASIP/X Bn DAP 7.1.08 Himself on 9.2.08

5. 635-38/ASIP/IX Bn. DAP 18.2.08 Himself on 21.2.08 The Disciplinary Authority has also observed in the Summary of Allegations that he is a habitual absentee and he absented himself from duty on 60 different occasions in the past. Though they have been regularized by awarding him warning PD/ED etc. still he has not mend his ways. The Disciplinary Authority has, therefore, considered his aforesaid action as gross misconduct and unbecoming act of a member of a disciplined force which renders him liable for departmental action under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. On completion of the departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has forwarded a copy of the enquiry report to the Applicant vide its letter dated 03.12.2008. According to the said letter, the Enquiry Officer has completed its enquiry and concluded that the charge leveled against him is fully substantiated. The evaluation of evidence adduced during the enquiry as recorded by the Enquiry Officer is reproduced as under:-

On the basis of record prepared during the course of departmental enquiry it is fully established that the delinquent Const. Dharambir has been habitual absentee. He has been absented himself from Govt. duty on 60 different occasions in the past from 25-02-1992 to 13-02-2006. How ever his all the absented period has been regularized by awarded him warning/PD/ED etc. but still he is not mending his ways. The delinquent Ct. has been absented himself from Govt. duty for Six times on different occasions and the delinquent Cost. Has been running absent from Govt. duty from 06-10-2007 continuously, unauthorised, without prior permission from the competent authority and thus his total period of absent from his duty from 06-10-2007 is more than 533 days to till date. Five absentee notices have been issued against the delinquent but he did not bother to report for duty. It is essential to prove the trend of the delinquent Cost. As to how much, he is devoted and dedicated to the oath which he took at the time of his getting into the discipline force and he is taking the department for a ride. If one can talk about todays communication scenario, a person can communicate in any part of the world or convey information (verbal/written) with in a span of few minutes, through various channels of technology today exists, but a discipline force man having 17 years of service career was unable to inform to department at any moment. It throws quite a bad impression on the other Police personnel too. Original Rojnamchas alongwith D.D entries of const. Dharambir 4535/sec in which D.D. entries have shown the absent and arrival from absent period as under:-

I have perused the entire D.E. file alongwith the finding of the E.O. During the course of D.E. proceedings the defaulter Ct. neither produced any DW nor submitted any defence statement as required under Rule 16(VII) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. All the PWs have proved the allegations leveled against the Constable. Hence I find no reason to disagree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer.

Keeping in view the all facts & circumstances I tend to decide the D.E. Exparte. The defaulter constable is a habitual absentee and not mending his ways. Willful absence in a disciplined force is not tolerable at all as it vitiate the discipline. Therefore, Ct. Dharambir Singh, No. 10616/DAP (Now 4535/Sec.) is hereby dismissed from the service with Immediate effect. His above absence period is decided as not spent on duty which is not being regularized in any manner.

16. He has also argued that the Appellate Authority in its order dated 10.05.2011 has taken hyper-technical view of limitation and has, therefore, rejected the appeal on 05.04.2011 without going into the merits of the contention submitted by him. Further, according to him, delay occurred was due to the circumstances beyond his control.

17. The Respondents in their reply have submitted that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the Applicant for his grave misconduct, negligence, carelessness, highly irresponsible behaviour. While he was posted in North East District and Security Unit, he remained willfully and unauthorizedly absent from Government duty without any intimation or taking prior permission of the competent authority as stated in the summary of allegations. Five absentee notices were sent to the Applicant at his native place, i.e., Village Bhanda Pur,PO Ratol PS Chandi Nagar,District Meerut(UP) with the directions to resume duty at once or in case of his illness to report to CMO/Civil Hospital, District Bulandshar for medical examination, failing which departmental action would be taken against him. But the Applicant neither resumed duty nor complied with the directions given in the absentee notices. The previous service of the Applicant also shows that he was a habitual absentee and had absented himself on 60 occasions in the past. They have also submitted that tentatively agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, a UO letter dated 3.12.2008 was sent to his residence through RI/E Block/Security which was received by his father Shri Babu Ram on 26.12.2008. While receiving the copy of findings, his father informed that the Applicant was not available in his house and whenever he comes to home, he used to say that he was coming from duty. They have also stated that keeping in view the principles of natural justice, he was asked to appear in OR on 16.01.2009 but he failed to do so. He was given other opportunities by sending UO notices on 16.02.2009 and 06.04.2009 to submit his representation but he did not respond to the said notices. Disciplinary Authority again called him on 30.04.2009 to submit his representation. However, he did not do so and the enquiry has to be decided ex-parte. As the Applicant was not responding or paying heed to various notices issued to him, the disciplinary authority decided not to decide the departmental enquiry ex-parte against him but ordered RI/E Block/Sec to depute a team of police officials who will bring the Applicant to his office so that departmental enquiry could be decided. Finally, a team of police officials reached his house in his village but he has gone to his relatives. Finally, he was produced before the Disciplinary Authority on 25.09.2009 but on 03.11.2009 after attending the Punishment Branch he slipped away. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Disciplinary Authority decided that the departmental enquiry be finalized ex-parte. Thus the Applicant was dismissed from service with immediate effect and the period involved in DE was decided as period not spent on duty which was not being regularized in any manner vide order dated 10.02.2010.