Jaipal vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 634 Del

$~31
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                          Judgment delivered on 30.01.2012

+      W.P.(C) 574/2012


JAIPAL                                                            ... Petitioner
                                           versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.                               ... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner    :    Mr Vikram Singh
For the Respondents   :    Mr Bharat Singh, Pairvi Officer.



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

BADAR DURREZ AHMED (ORAL)

CM 1215/2012(exemption)

       Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

       The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 574/2012 & CM 1214/2012(stay)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.05.2011 in OA No.1521/2010,

whereby the Tribunal dismissed the said OA. The petitioner had challenged his dismissal

from service.

2. The allegations against the petitioner are that he absented himself from work for a

period of 515 days at a stretch without informing the authorities and without applying for

leave. The findings were given by the Inquiry Officer on 18.11.2008. The disciplinary

authority's order is dated 10.06.2009 and the appellate authority's order is dated

04.12.2009. The findings have been confirmed against him. The only pleas taken by the

petitioner before the Tribunal were that his defence had not been considered and that the

genuineness of the medical papers was not doubted yet the order of the dismissal was

passed against him. The Tribunal negated both the pleas.

3. The Tribunal specifically noted that his defence had been considered by the

Inquiry Officer as well as by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The

Tribunal also held that even if the medical papers submitted by the petitioner were taken

into consideration, that would still not cover the entire period of 515 days for which he

was absent. We note from the Tribunal's order that it is not the first occasion on which

the petitioner had absented himself from work. In fact, he remained absent on 110

occasions prior to this long stretch of absence of 515 days. It is for these reasons that the

authorities below passed the dismissal order which was challenged before the Tribunal

and the Tribunal had refrained from interfering with the same. The conclusions of the

Tribunal are set out in paragraph Nos. 13 & 14 of the impugned order, which read as

under:-

"13. We have heard the counsel for the applicant and the counsel for respondents. There is no doubt that in a responsible and disciplined force like Delhi Police, the officials cannot take the freedom to absent themselves from duty at their will, that too for an indefinite and long period. It is also well-settled that absenteeism is serious misconduct and the punishment of dismissal for the same cannot be held to be disproportionate considering the gravity of the misconduct. As regards the contention of counsel for applicant that the defence of the applicant was not considered by the authorities concerned, we have seen the order

of the disciplinary authority. It clearly indicates that it has taken into consideration his medical certificates as it has stated that if he was really suffering from any disease, he should have obtained Medical Rest from the Doctor and sought permission of the competent authority to avail such medical rest at his residence as required in the Leave Rules and S.O.-111. Instead of doing so, he absented himself from duty at his own sweet will. As regards the contention of the counsel for applicant that the genuineness of the medical papers have not been doubted or verified, we find that the issue was not the question of genuineness of the medical papers at all. On the other hand, it was a matter of unauthorized and willful absence of the applicant from duty and his habitual absenteeism. The disciplinary authority has also stated in his order that the medical certificates submitted by the applicant were also not covering the entire period of his absence of 515 days. We, therefore, do not find anything wrong with the orders of the appellate authority. He has also gone into the entire case and it was only thereafter that he issued the order rejecting appeal of the applicant and upholding the order of the disciplinary authority.

14. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this case. OA is, accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs."

4. We see no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order. This writ petition along

with the accompanying stay application is dismissed.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K.JAIN, J JANUARY 30,2012 'sn'