Kanhuram Kisku vs Director Inspector General Of Police And Others

The present appeal is directed against an order dated 22nd September, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.C.(OAC) No.796 of 1999 filed by the present Appellant questioning an order dated 30th September, 1996 passed by the Director Inspector General of Police, P.T.C., Angul dismissing the Appellant from service as Constable for unauthorized absence from 28th May, 1994 to 10th August, 1994, i.e., for a period of 74 days. Also challenged was the order dated 25.10.1998 of the Director General of Police, Orissa rejecting the representation of the Appellant against the dismissal order.

The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on two grounds. One was that the Appellant had approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal (OAT) against the dismissal order belatedly. As far as this ground is concerned, the Court notes that the Appellant exhausted the remedy of an appeal before approaching the OAT. The appeal was rejected on 25.10.1998 and the application in the OAT was filed in 1999 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the said application was barred by laches.

However, on merits, the learned Single Judge noted that with the Appellant not having any valid explanation for being absent from duty for 74 days without intimating anyone, it was a serious enough misconduct for which the punishment of dismissal from service could not be said to be disproportionate.

As noted by the learned Single Judge prior to the order of dismissal, there was due compliance with the principles of natural justice with the Appellant being issued a Show-Cause Notice (SCN) and a full-fledged enquiry being held thereafter, in which witnesses were examined on behalf of the Department and opportunity was given to the Appellant to cross-examine such witnesses.

The Appellant was unable to dispute that he proceeded on leave for 74 days, purportedly on account of his wife’s illness, without any intimation to anyone. Being a Constable in the Orissa Police, he could not have been unaware of the consequences of staying away from duty for such a long period without any permission from the competent authority.

Consequently, the Court is unable to accept the plea of the Appellant that the punishment of dismissal from service for the above misconduct from a disciplined force like the Orissa Police was excessive and requires to be interfered with.

The net result is that no grounds have been made out on merits for interference with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and, accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.

…………………………..