D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1014/2008 Ramesh Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Judgment :: July 14, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Sunit Awasthi for the appellant. *** Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 31.1.2008 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition no.801/2008 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of his dismissal from service dated 11.8.2003, was rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that his previous conduct with regard to absence of seventy eight times could not be taken into consideration while deciding the disciplinary matter against him on the basis of a fresh charge-sheet. The learned Single Judge also was not justified in considering this aspect of the matter in dismissing the writ petition. It was argued that the appellant was not provided the copy of the enquiry reports and relevant documents and he was also not provided defence nominee, due to which he could not effectively defend himself. The disciplinary authority has also not granted him sufficient time to file reply to the charge-sheet. The appellate authority has mechanically rejected his appeal upholding the order of his dismissal from service. -2- On consideration of the aforesaid arguments and the materials on record, especially, the nature of charges and the enquiry report, we find that independent of the factum of the petitioner's previous absence on as many as seventy eight occasions, previously, charge no.1 itself which was proved against the petitioner was enough to justify the order of dismissal. The charge was to the effect that the petitioner, who was a constable in police line, Kota absented himself from duty on 3.11.2001 and then he appeared on 16.2.2002, and for this period, neither he informed the department nor he was granted any kind of leave. Thereafter, again he absented himself from duty on 6.4.2002 as would be evident from the findings on charge no.2 for which, a notice was issued to him on 22.5.2002 to attend duties. Inspite of having received the notice on 25.5.2002, he joined the duty belatedly on 3.9.2002. Gravity of charge in the case of the member of a disciplined force like police, it has to be viewed rather seriously, especially, if it is the charge of long absence. The disciplinary authority, in our view, considering the prolonged wilful absence of the petitioner on different occasions, which was very much made part of the charges, was justified in passing the order of dismissal, especially, looking to the previous conduct of the petitioner that he was habitual absentee and has remained absent on as many as seventy eight occasions in the past. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the learned Single Judge. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY),CJ. Skant/-