IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5212 of 2002. WRIT PETITION NO.5212 of 2002. WRIT PETITION NO.5212 of 2002. Soman Damodar Sumanan ..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Others ..Respondents Mr.Prabhu with N.V.Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner Mr.S.K.Chincholikar AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. R.Y.GANOO, JJ. R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED : 12th June, 2008. DATED : 12th June, 2008. DATED : 12th June, 2008. JUDGMENT (Per R.Y.Ganoo, J.). JUDGMENT (Per R.Y.Ganoo, J.). JUDGMENT (Per R.Y.Ganoo, J.). 1. The petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable and he was attached to Nigadi Police Station. The petitioner faced a charge wherein it was alleged that the petitioner remained absent without permission of the Competent Authority from 27th July, 1997 upto 23rd September, 1997 i.e. for a period of 59 days. The learned Advocate for the petitioner in the course of hearing submitted that the petitioner had not tendered a formal application for leave. It is seen that on 4th September, 1997 when the petitioner proceeded to report for duty, he was asked to report to the -2- Deputy Commissioner, Zone III. However, the petitioner did not report to the said Officer for further period of 19 days. On account of this, Regular Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the services of the petitioner came to be terminated by Order dated 21st November, 1998. After regular departmental enquiry, a penalty of dismissal was imposed. Appeal filed before Special Inspector General of Police (Administration) was rejected. A Revision Application was preferred. The same came to be dismissed on 27th March, 2000. 2. Thereafter the petitioner filed original application No.589 of 2000 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and challenged the Order of dismissal. The learned Members of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal decided the matter and dismissed the said original application by Order dated 31st August, 2001. A review application was filed, being Application No.73 of 2001. That review application was also rejected on 16th August, 2002. Being aggrieved by the orders passed as above, the petitioner has approached this Court so as to see that the punishment of dismissal -3- imposed upon him is set aside. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The record clearly goes to show that the petitioner remained absent from 27th July, 1997 to 23rd September, 1997 for a period of 59 days. It is the case of the petitioner that he was suffering from Jaundice and therefore he could not attend duty during the said period. What is more disturbing is the petitioner, after reporting the duty did not tender formal application for grant of leave so as to cover his absence for the aforesaid period. It is also required to be noted that after the petitioner intended to report for duty on 4th September, 1997 he was asked to report to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone III, for the purpose of getting appropriate Order for reporting. The petitioner did not report for 19 days thereby violating the directions of his immediate superior. The non reporting for a period of 19 days is something which is not properly explained by the petitioner and this also amounts to violation of terms of service. -4- 4. We have, with the assistance of the learned advocates on both sides perused the entire record and we are inclined to accept the view taken by the Disciplinary Authority with regard to the observation that the charge is duly proved. Since the petitioner could not even show before this Court that a formal application was made, it is clear that the petitioner has not complied the terms of Service Rules. This conduct of the petitioner is in violation of the Service Rules and the charge levelled against him is duly proved. The Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authorities have rightly rejected the stand of the petitioner. 5. We have also considered the judgment delivered by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and after having gone through the same we have no reason to disagree. The Review Application against the Order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal is also dismissed. Here is a case where the person working in a police force remained absent for a period of 59 days without permission. As per the Service Rules, he could not have remained absent without prior permission. During -5- the period of absence petitioner did not contact his superiors and intimated the office about his absence. Atleast after his sickness was over and when he intended to report for duty, he should have tendered an application for grant of appropriate leave. He did not do so. After he was asked to report to the Superior, he did not report on the same day, instead he reported after 19 days. The conduct of the petitioner is in violation of the Service Rules. It is to be noted that the petitioner was working as a Police Constable. Police Service requires punctuality and compliance with service discipline. The punishment of dismissal from service came to be inflicted upon him by the Competent Authority. After having considered the entire record we are of the considered view that no fault can be found with the finding of the Disciplinary Authority. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment of dismissal from service was proper punishment. The authorities before whom the Order of dismissal was challenged have arrived at a proper conclusion. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has considered the case from all angles and has rightly rejected the application No.589 of -6- 2000 and Review Application No.73 of 2001. We see no reason to interfere in those orders. 6. It was argued by Learned Advocate for petitioner that the concerned authorities should have taken a lenient view and imposed minor punishment. We are unable to accept this argument. The authority empowered to impose punishment has considered the gravity of the charge, the conduct of the petitioner all throughout and then imposed the punishment of dismissal. In our view the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone III was right in passing the Order of dismissal. 7. It was sought to be argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that he was appointed by the Commissioner of Police, but the Order of dismissal was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone III who is an officer subordinate to the Commissioner of Police. The respondents have filed affidavit in reply dated 23rd September, 2005 explaining therein as to how Dy. Commissioner of Police (H.Q.) appointed the petitioner and how the powers were delegated to Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone III to pass Orders of dismissal. -7- There is no rejoinder to the stand taken up by respondents in the affidavit in reply. In view of the clear explanation found in the affidavit in reply we do not find any fault in the matter of passing Orders of dismissal by Dy. Commissioner of Police, Zone III. 8. In view of the above, we are inclined to observe that there is no merit in the case of the petitioner. The punishment of dismissal was proper and as such the petition is required to be dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)