Delhi High Court
Ambure Nivrutii vs Gnct Of Dlehi & Others on 10 May, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3042/2011
Date of order: 10th May, 2011
AMBURE NIVRUTII ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Javed Ahmad and Ms. Eram
Khan, Advocates.
versus
GNCT OF DLEHI & OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Zubeda Begum, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
SANJIV KHANNA, J.:
The petitioner, a constable in Delhi Police, was chargesheeted as
he had remained absent for more than 194 days during the period 5 th
February, 2000 till 23rd June, 2002. The charge sheet further records as
under:-
"Besides the above willful and unauthorized
absence of 194 days, 22 hours and 15 mnts. It is
further alleged against you Constable Ambure
N.R. No.7435/DAP that on 17.7.02, you were
detailed for reserved duty in VI Bn. DAP Hqrs
from 8 am but you did not report for your duty and
as such marked absent vide DD No.56 dt.17.7.02,
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3042/2011 Page 1 of 5
during the said absence period you const.
accidentally consumed poison at your residence,
Narela. As such you were admitted in Hindu Rao
Hospital on 24.7.02 and discharged from the said
Hospital on 29.7.02 vide Discharged slip
No.17749. On tis (sic) discharge slip, you were
also advised rest for three days which was
permitted by RI/VI Bn. DAP. After availing the
rest you, Const. Ambure N.R. No.7435/DAP were
due back to resume your duty on 1.8.02 but you
did not do so and intimated vide telephone that
you have been further advised 10 days more
medical rest by Govt. Hospital, Maharashtra. This
information was lodged vide DD No.22 dt. 1.8.02.
You Ambure N.R. No.7435/DAP were also
advised that you will be self responsible to get
your medical rest permitted as per S.O No.111.
You were due back to resume your duty after
availing your so called medical rest (from 1.8.02
to 10.8.02) on 11.8.02 but you did not do as such
marked absent vide DD No.31 dt. 11.8.02. You
joined your duty at your own sweet will on
21.8.02 vide DD No.29 dt. 21.8.02 VI Bn. DAP,
Delhi."
2. The respondent had issued absentee notices dated 24th April,
2002, 17th May, 2002, 14th June, 2002 and 16th August, 2002, but
without any result. The petitioner neither informed the respondent
about his absence nor reported to the concerned civil hospital for
medical examination. The petitioner had also remained absent from
duty with effect from 28th March, 2002 without intimation or prior
permission of the competent authority.
3. The Enquiry Officer after recording evidence concluded that the
petitioner was a habitual absentee and the charges stand proved. On the
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3042/2011 Page 2 of 5
basis of the Enquiry report, vide order dated 10th September, 2004, the
disciplinary authority passed an order holding that the charge is proved
and it was observed that the petitioner is a habitual absentee and is,
therefore, totally unfit to be retained in service. Before recording the
said finding, the disciplinary authority had given the following
reasons:-
"The above long absences of the delinquent
Constable Ambure, N.R., No.7435/DAP from
Govt. duty on several occasions, without cogent
reason and prior permission of the competent
authority indicate that he has no interest in the
Govt. duty and he is in the habit to remain on and
off from duty at his own will and volition. The
defaulter did not seek permission to avail leave
during his absence period. He made no attempt at
any stage to follow the C.C.S. (Leave) Rules, 1972
and S.O. no.111 of Delhi Police. Besides the
delinquent Constables did not submit his defence
statement against the charge and also not
submitted his representation against the findings
of the E.O. Moreover, he has also not appeared in
the O.R. for personal hearing to explain his
grievance in person. His above acts suggests that
he has nothing to say in his defence regarding his
long absence on different occasions. It is, thus, fair
to conclude that his above absence were
deliberate."
4. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 12 th
September, 2004 on or about 9th January, 2007 after a delay of more
than two years. The appeal was belated and barred by time. The
appellate authority examined the merits of the case and came to the
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3042/2011 Page 3 of 5
conclusion that the petitioner used to go on leave and would remain
absent as per his own will and did not follow any rules. It was observed
that the unauthorized absence cannot be condoned and the same was an
act of indiscipline in the present case. On the question of delay, the
disciplinary authority has held that the appeal was highly belated and
the delay should not be condoned.
5. Reliance placed by the petitioner on the circular dated 23 rd
July, 1997 is misconceived. In the present case, the petitioner did not
participate in the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer and
disciplinary authority. In case the petitioner had participated and led
defence evidence, the aspects with regard to genuineness and
authenticity of the medical certificate would have been examined. It
is noticed that in the present case repeated letters and notices were
issued to the petitioner to rejoin the duty and also get himself
medically examined in the civil hospital, but the petitioner did not
get himself examined. The departmental witnesses were examined
before the Enquiry Officer, but the petitioner did not cross examine
them. He also did not lead any evidence in his defence. In fact, after
the charge was framed the petitioner did not appear in the Enquiry
proceeding.
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3042/2011 Page 4 of 5
6. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the
present writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
MAY 10, 2011
NA
