AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in Armed Police in 1998. Petitioner was remained
absent from duty from 24.07.2004 to 28.07.2004 and from 15.12.2004 to 19.12.2004. On 05.01.2005, 11.01.2005 and 02.02.2005, he had
not participated in morning parade. Thereafter, a preliminary inquiry was conducted by Circle Officer and after the preliminary inquiry, the Circle
Officer, Police Line, Haridwar recommended for departmental inquiry. Consequently, departmental inquiry was conducted by Superintendent of
Police, Haridwar on the charge of remaining absent from duty without obtaining leave on three different occasions and for not participating in the
morning parade. After completion of the inquiry, Superintendent of Police, Haridwar recommended for removal of the petitioner from service and
accordingly, Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar, after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner, passed the removal order. Thereafter,
petitioner challenged the removal order unsuccessfully by way of filing appeal and revision before the respondent nos. 3 and 2 respectively. Feeling
aggrieved, petitioner challenged the orders passed by the respondents /authorities before this Court.
Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner submits that neither any charge-sheet was ever issued to the petitioner nor any opportunity of
hearing was granted by the Inquiry Officer before recommending the punishment of removal from service. He further contends that while passing
impugned removal order, Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar had also taken into consideration the past conduct of the petitioner, which
was not part of charges, in question.
Mr. V.D. Bisen, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents submits that copy of the charge-sheet and other relevant documents
were supplied to the petitioner on 12.07.2005 and again on 09.08.2005 and there was endorsement of receiving of the same by the petitioner and
despite, receiving the charge-sheet, petitioner never appeared before the Inquiry Officer.
Heard Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. V.D. Bisen, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents and
perused the record.
Though learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand submitted that the charge-sheet and other relevant documents were supplied to the
petitioner, but in support of his contention the respondents have failed to file any document, which makes it clear that the charge-sheet and other
relevant documents were supplied to the petitioner, despite the fact that entire record of the disciplinary proceedings were in the possession of the
respondents. From the perusal of aforesaid fact, it is clear that removal order was passed ex parte by the Authorities behind the back of petitioner,
which is against the principles of natural justice. Since no charge-sheet was served on the petitioner, therefore, there was no occasion for him to
appear before the Inquiry Officer. The charges leveled against the petitioner is that he remained absent from duty for 10 days and he had not
participated in the morning parade. In my opinion, the punishment of removal from service is not commensurate with the charges leveled against the
petitioner. Further, the Disciplinary Authority while passing the removal order had exceeded its jurisdiction by punishing the petitioner for the
charges, which were not in charge-sheet, which is apparent from the charges mentioned in Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition.
In view of the above discussion, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 30.11.2005, 17.04.2006 and 26.02.2007 passed by
respondents no. 4, 3 and 2 respectively are quashed. Petitioner is reinstated in service. Since the petitioner has not worked from the date of
removal, therefore, he is not entitled for any backwages from the date of removal till the date of his joining, on the principle of ""no work, no pay"".
No order as to costs.