AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amareshwar Sahay, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
The petitioner, a police constable of State Police Force, was dismissed from service by the District Order No. 1087/94 dated 9.4.1994 issued under the signature of the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, contained in Annexure-2 to this writ petition, after the charges against him in the departmental proceeding were found proved that he was unauthorized absent from duty from 18.2.1993 to 11.5.2001.
The petitioner challenged the said order of dismissal from service by filing W.P. (S) No. 3470 of 2001 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 2.8.2001(Annexure-4 to this writ application) directing the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of departmental appeal.
Thereafter the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector of Police, South Chotanagpur Region, Ranchi. The appellate authority by order as contained in Annexure-5 to this writ petition, dismissed the appeal, which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ application.
There is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner was a member of State Police Force and remained absent from duty from 18.2.1993 to 11.5.2001 without any information to the department.
According to the petitioner he was suffering from serious mental illness and he was undergoing treatment under Dr. Tushar Kanti Ganguly, Psychiatrist, Ranchi and therefore, he could not attend his duties and because of his mental condition he could not also inform the department. Only after he was fully cured then he came to his village in the month of May 2001, where he was given the order of dismissal from service. Thereafter the petitioner went to the office of the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, with a representation showing inability to attend his duties from 26.2.1993 to 11.5.2001, but he was not allowed to join and thereafter the petitioner filed earlier writ petition i.e. W.P. (S) No. 3470 of 2001.
On the other hand, the case of the respondents- State is that if the petitioner was in fact suffering from mental illness he or any of his family members could have informed the department about his illness or reason of his absence from duty, but that was not done either by the petitioner or by any of his family members. On the other hand in the departmental proceeding the charge regarding his unauthorized absence was fully proved. It is further stated on behalf of the respondents that the appellate authority has considered all the points raised by the petitioner in detail and, thereafter, dismissed his appeal and, therefore, no interference by this Court is required in this matter.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in such a bad mental condition and he was not remembering anything at that time and he was not in a position to inform the department about his absence or even about his mental disorder. It is further contended that the order for dismissal from service was passed behind his back without giving any opportunity of hearing and even the appellate authority did not afford any opportunity of personal hearing. Therefore, the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as the Disciplinary authority are bad in law.
The order passed by the appellate authority has been annexed as Annexure-5 to this writ application. From perusal of the same, it appears that the appellate authority after considering the case of the petitioner in detail has come to a finding that even notice or letters were sent by the department at the residential address of the petitioner, but neither the petitioner nor any of his family members or even his Doctor, who was treating him, informed the office of the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, about such mental condition of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the appellate authority did not accept the plea of the petitioner that he was in fact suffering from mental illness and thus could not attend his duties. The appellate authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from his duty from 18.2.1993 to 9.4.1994, which was a serious misconduct on his part and, therefore, the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary authority does not require any interference.
Even in the writ petition, apart from annexing a certificate issued by one Dr. Tushar Kanti Ganguly on 11.5.2001, no other document has been annexed to show that actually the petitioner was being treated for any mental illness. The certificate annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-1, shows that the petitioner was suffering from "Dyrthymia" (Mental disorder). Absence from duty for a long period of about 7 to 8 years that also without any information to the department is a serious misconduct on the part of the Government Servant particularly for a member of the Police Force, which is considered to be a disciplined force. It is not believable that there was no one in the family of the petitioner who could have informed the department about his unauthorized absence. The petitioner has totally failed to establish the fact that he was, in fact suffering from mental illness in between the period from 18.2.1993 to 11.5.2001 i.e. about 7 to 8 years and was not in a position to attend his duty due to such illness. In my view considering the gravity of the charge, the punishment of dismissal from service was the appropriate punishment awarded to the petitioner.
In view of the discussions and findings above, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned orders passed by the appellate authority as well as the Disciplinary authority. Accordingly, having found merit, this writ application is hereby dismissed.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to the costs.