1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 645 of 2001 ISHWAR SINGH V/S STATE & ORS Mr. RS SALUJA & Mr. HS SHEKHAWAT, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. BL BHATI, A.G.A., for the respondent Date of Order : 8.1.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. ORDER ----- This appeal has been filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the order of learned Single Judge dt. 3.5.2001 dismissing the petitioner's writ petition. The petitioner by the writ petition had challenged the order of punishment of dismissal from service, imposed upon him Annexure-3 dt. 13.12.1991, consequent upon disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, pursuant to a charge sheet dt. 14.12.89, so also the appellate order Annexure-5 dt. 30.3.1992, upholding the punishment. Devoid of unnecessary details, the facts are that the petitioner was employed as constable in the Police Force, and at the relevant time was posted at Bikaner Police Line. According to the charge sheet seven charges 2 were framed against him for various absences for various periods mentioned in the charge sheet during the year 1989, and also alleging that perusal of the entire record shows that the petitioner is habitual absentee, and absents himself from important duties. The petitioner submitted reply only denying the charge, and pleading that he would submit his defence during enquiry. This reply has been produced as Annexure-2 which in all runs into seven lines. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry wherein the petitioner participated. However, the petitioner did not lead any evidence in defence, rather as appears from punishment order Annexure-3, that the petitioner submitted a further reply, alleging that on account of ailment of his parents he was required to go to village off and on, and therefore, he absented. With this it was submitted that he would not repeat it in future. It was found by the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner is habitual absentee, and every time he did not seek permission to leave, and looking to the gravity of conduct, considering the nature of services, punishment was imposed as above. The petitioner challenged the same by filing the appeal contending interalia that he was not supplied with the copy of enquiry report, and challenging the quantum of punishment to be disproportionate. The Appellate Authority considered the material charge-wise, and even after re- appreciation of the material, the Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the learned Disciplinary 3 Authority. The contention about non supply of enquiry report was also considered, and negatived. The learned Single Judge has also found that non supply of enquiry report is not shown to have caused any prejudice to the petitioner, and unless prejudice is shown, interference cannot be made, and for this proposition series of judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court has been relied. Then, the merits of the findings have also been examined. Likewise, the question of proportionality of the quantum of punishment has also been considered, and after considering all these aspects, the writ petition has been dismissed. In our view, in view of the shifting stands taken by the petitioner from place to place like reason given out for absence in his Reporting Entry (Amad), and then in the reply submitted during course of enquiry are irreconcilable. It is not shown that the petitioner had lead any evidence, even to substantiate whatever be the stand taken by him about reason for absence, as factum of absence, and the petitioner having remained absent without obtaining leave, or permission, are the aspects which are no more in dispute. In such circumstances, when the absence covered by all the charges, and such absence being without obtaining leave, are not in dispute, in absence of any reason being pleaded, and proved, by the appellant, for the absence, no fault can be found in the delinquency found proved, so also in the quantum of punishment, more 4 particular considering the fact that the petitioner was employed as a constable in the Police Force. So far non supply of enquiry report is concerned, we are at one with the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority, so also by the learned Single Judge. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that we do not find any force in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. ( MOHAMMAD RAFIQ ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/