#5 03-02-2009 Present: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Adv. for the Petitioner. Ms. Jyoti Singh & Mr. Ankur Chhiber, Advs. for the Respondents. + WP fC) No. 7394/2008 * Indubitably the Petitioner was charge sheeted and the inquiry held against him on the charge that he remained un-authorisedly absent from service for a period of 471 days. According to the department, the Petitioner had not submitted any leave application also during this period. He appeared in the inquiry though at that time he was still absent from duty . He never gave any defence that he was sick and, therefore, on that ground he was not attendmg the duties. The Inquiry Officer, on the basis of record returned the findings that the Petitioner remained absent un-authorisedly. The report of the Inquiry Officer was given to the Petitioner to make a representation but even before the disciplinary authority, the Petitioner never pleaded sickness as a reason for un-authorizedabsence.He was imposedthe punishment of dismissal from service. For the first time in his appeal before the Appellate Authority, he tookup the plea that he was sick and, therefore,couldnot attendthe duties. This plea has been rightly rejected by the learned Tribunal as an Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified V afterthoughtplea. We may also note that besides the aforesaid absence of 471 days for the period from 21.09.2003 to 26.05.2004, the Petitioner remained absent un-authorizedly on 12 occasions earlier as well. Details in respectwhereofaregivenbytheInquiryOfficerin his findings. Inthe reply filed before the learned Tribunal, the Respondents have also mentioned that he was awarded a major punishmentof forfeiture of his 5 years approved servicepermanentlyfor histotalun-authorizedabsenceof 97duringthe year 1996-97 vide orders dated 15.07.1998. The Petitioner was working as Constable in Delhi Police and being uniformed employee in a disciplinedforce, he was supposed to be more vigilantin his duties than the civiliansin Governmentservice.The absence of the Petitioner for such a long period , therefore, has to be viewed seriously. Though a feign attempt was made to show that the wife of the Petitioner had informed the Respondents about his sickness by sending communication on 21.09.2003, copy of no such communication is shown. Only a receipt is producedas per which some communicationwas sent by her to the DCP on 22.09.2003 . The Respondents had denied the receipt on such intimation about the Petitioner's sickness. We may also point out at this stagethat as perthe systemprevailinginDelhiPolice such a requestcould /- y be entered in tlie Rojnamcha by the duty officer even when information about sickness is given by a telephonic call. As per the Respondents even that has not been done. In these circumstances, we do not find it to be a fit case for interference in exercise of our extraordinaryjurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Dismissed. February 03, 2009 hk aIk:SIKKi;T SURESHKAIT, J