Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM PAL SHARMA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Pal Sharma v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 56129 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 1733 (23 January 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.9    

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.56129 of 2004

Ram Pal Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & others

Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.

Cause shown is sufficient.  The order dated 17.1.2005 dismissing the writ petition for want of prosecution in the absence of his counsel is recalled.  The writ petition shall be restored to its original number and has been heard.

I have heard Shri Gulab Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.  The petitioner was serving as Constable in Civil Police and was posted at district Badaun.  He absented himself from duties in the night of  19.4.92.  He  returned back on 23.5.92.    Thereafter he again absented from duties without applying for leave on 23.5.92 and returned back on 8.10.92.  He was, thereafter, charge sheeted under U.P. Police Subordinate Officer (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1991 for remaining absent without authorization.  

The petitioner submits his reply stating that he was ill and could not attend duties.    His medical certificate was examined and it was found that he was never hospitalized and had never applied for leave.  After giving him adequate opportunity to defend himself the S.S.P. Bareilly, found the charges of long unauthorized absence to be established and punished him with the order of dismissal; the entire period of absence was treated to be leave without pay and the period of suspension without any pay and allowance except the suspension allowance.

The appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the dismissal order dated 31.7.94 was dismissed on 9.11.95.  The revision was dismissed by Deputy Inspector General, Bareilly Zone, Bareilly on 13.6.97.

It appears that the petitioner submitted a representation to the Director General of Police under para 508 of the Police Regulations, which is still pending, and that after waiting for seven years he filed this writ petition.

Shri Gulab Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was ill, therefore, he could not attend his duties.  The S.S.P. was required to verify the medical certificates.  He submits that the petitioner was not given full opportunity to defend himself in the departmental inquiry and that the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the charges.

In a disciplined force, unauthorized absence from duties is an act of serious indiscipline.  In the present case, the petitioner absented himself twice,  for a total period of 171 days without applying for leave.  On both occasion he was found absent without informing the duty officer.   On 23.5.92 he was found absent in the roll call at night.    These acts in my opinion are acts of gross indiscipline on which the disciplinary inquiry could not be avoided.   The petitioner was unable to explain his absence from duties.   It is stated that he was suffering from ''bronchitis', which is not a serious disease, which may have prevented him even applying for leave.   The petitioner was never hospitalized, to justify the long absence of 171 days.  Further I do not find that the petitioner had any symptom of bronchitis and had taken any leave prior to his absence to satisfy the authorities that he was actually ill.   Lastly, the petitioner waited for seven years to file this writ petition, which disentitle him for any equitable consideration in this writ petition.  After the enforcement of Rules of 1991, the procedure in Police Regulations for disciplinary inquiry, appeal and revision are not applicable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment in Mirza Barkat Ali Vs. Inspector General of Police, Allahabad and others, (2002) 2 SAC 213 in support of his submissions that punishment is grossly disproportionate to the charges.   There is no parity in the two cases.  In the case cited by the petitioner, the petitioner was absent from duties for 109 days, and had produced medical certificates, to justify his illness.  In the present case, the disciplinary authorities were not satisfied with the explanation of long absence.    In case of employees of disciplined forces, an entirely different approach has to be adopted.

The writ petition is dismissed.

Dt.23.1.2006

SP/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.