(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 776/1998 RICHHPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Date: 26.10.2006. HON'BLE MR. K.S. RATHORE, J. Mr. S.P. Sharma for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chhaba, Addl. GA for the respondents. **** This writ petition is directed against the dismissal order dated 12.07.94 and the appellate authority's order dated 08.08.97. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Rajasthan Police on 10.09.69. When he was posted at Poice Line, Ajmer, a chargesheet was issued vide order dated 18.06.90, by which two charges were levelled against the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner had been granted leave from 11.04.90 for 5 days, however he over stayed and rejoined his duties on 25.04.90. Second charge levelled against the petitioner is that in the year 1989-90 while he was posted at Ajmer line, he had remained absent from duty for the period from 24.05.89 to 09.07.89, 05.09.89 to 07.11.89 and 24.12.89 to 25.01.90. The disciplinary authority after considering the charges levelled (2) against the petitioner, dismissed him from service vide order dated 06.02.91, against which the petitioner preferred appeal and the same was allowed vide order dated 24.04.92 and the termination/dismissal order has been set-aside observing that the petitioner be given fresh opportunity to put up his defence and thereafter the decision be taken on the enquiry. On the findings given by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 04.06.92. After holding enquiry, punishment order under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules had been passed on 04.09.90 for absence from duty for the period from 29.12.89 to 25.01.90. For absence from 25.11.89 to 05.12.89, the petitioner had been issued notice under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules and was punished with penalty of censure vide order dated 31.08.90. Similarly for absence from 27.01.90 to 17.02.90, another chargesheet was served under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules and the petitioner was again punished with penalty of censure vide order dated 31.08.90. With regard to the period of absence from 07.11.90 to 04.12.90, a separate notice under Rule 17 was served, however, since the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 06.02.91, the period not spent on duty from 07.11.90 to 04.12.90 was counted as EOL and the enquiry was dropped. (3) Again enquiry was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 16 for absence from duty and after holding enquiry, the disciplinary authority considering all aspects, dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 12.07.94. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said dismissal order dated 12.07.94 and the same was also rejected vide order dated 08.08.97. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged both the aforesaid orders i.e. the order dated 12.07.94 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 08.08.97 passed by the appellate authority. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab And Others Vs. Mohinder Singh reported in (2005) 12 SCC 182, State of T.N. And Others Vs. M. Natarajan And Another reported in (1997)6 SCC 415 and State of Punjab Vs. Prakash Chand reported in (1997) 11 SCC 523. After referring the aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that looking to the charges, the punishment order which has been passed, is excessive. The petitioner was in service for more than 24 years (4) and after considering the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in the aforementioned cases, the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate looking to the charge levelled against the petitioner and the same may be converted into the order of compulsory retirement from service as the petitioner has already put in more than 24 years of service. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent State submits that it is not a solitary ground that the petitioner was habitual of remaining absent from duty and being a member of disciplined force looking to the conduct of the petitioner, after holding enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority cannot be said to be excessive. I have considered the rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully perused the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority as also the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not disputed that the petitioner remained willfully absent and over stayed for short period, even considering the earlier conduct of the petitioner that he was habitual to remain absent from duty and for that the punishment order under Rule 17 of (5) the CCA Rules has already been awarded. Now the dismissal order has been passed after conducting enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules for over stay without prior sanction of leave but, looking to the charges, the punishment of dismissal from service as per the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments, is excessive and having considered the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab And Others Vs. Mohinder Singh (supra), the order of dismissal from service be converted into the order of compulsory retirement from service as the petitioner has already put in more than 24 years of service. In view of these facts, the impugned punishment order dated 12.07.94 passed by the disciplinary authority and the impugned order dated 08.08.97 passed by the appellate authority are hereby quashed and set-aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for converting his order of dismissal from service into an order of compulsory retirement. With these observations, the writ petition stands allowed. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/