(Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.)
Narendra Singh ____________________________________ Appellant;
v.
State of Rajasthan and Others _____________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. 11317 of 2011, decided on August 17, 2023
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 16th May, 2011 passed by the Jodhpur Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan whereby the Division Bench of the High Court had rejected an appeal1 preferred by him against his dismissal order.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had joined the services of Rajasthan Police as a Constable on 1st September, 1976. On 21st February, 1989, the Custom Officials of Jodhpur recovered 5-6 Kgs of heroin from two persons who stated that they had received the said contraband from the appellant. Though extensive search was carried out by the respondents looking out for the appellant, he could not be traced. In other words, the appellant had absconded. Vide order dated 21st June, 1989, the appellant was placed under suspension. This was followed by a departmental inquiry wherein, the appellant admittedly did not participate. Finally, vide order dated 20th December, 1991, the respondent No. 4 – Disciplinary Authority2 passed an order of dismissal against the appellant from service for having absconded from 23rd February, 1989, without any information. After seven years, in the year 1998, the appellant preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 3 – Appellate Authority3, assailing his dismissal order passed on 20th December, 1991. The said appeal was dismissed by the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 31st December, 1998, on the ground that the appellant had continued to abscond from his place of posting from 23rd February, 1989 after being involved in the case of smuggling of heroin registered by the Customs Department. It was also noted that the Inquiry proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and only thereafter, was the punishment awarded to the appellant.
3. Aggrieved by the said order of rejection passed by the Appellate Authority3, after three years, in the year 2001, the appellant preferred a Review Petition before the respondent No. 3-DIG Range, Jodhpur which was also dismissed vide order dated 3rd July, 2001 with an observation that the appellant had voluntarily absented himself from duty for a long period and despite publication in the newspaper4, he did not report for duty. It was also observed that the departmental inquiry against the appellant had been conducted in accordance with law and the punishment imposed on him was in connection with the allegation of absence from duty as distinct from the criminal case5 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 19856 in which the appellant claimed that he had been acquitted.
4. Pertinently, the appellant did not surrender in the criminal case. He surrendered only in the year 1997. Vide order dated 17th March, 1998, the trial Court acquitted the appellant for the offences7 punishable under the Act with an observation that the statement of the co-accused against him did not appear to have been made voluntarily.
5. In the year 2002, the appellant filed a writ petition8 before the High Court challenging his dismissal order9. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge10, which order was upheld by the Division Bench in appeal11.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the appellant is excessive in nature inasmuch as he had clean antecedents prior to the year 1989 which could be seen from his service record. He further states that the appellant could not appear before the Inquiry Officer as he was not served with the chargesheet nor was the dismissal order ever served upon him. Lastly, it is stated that once the appellant has been acquitted in the criminal case, then the respondents ought not to have taken such a harsh view against him of dismissal from service.
7. We are afraid, none of the aforesaid pleas are persuasive. In the instant case, the appellant deliberately kept away from the inquiry proceedings. He was aware of the manner in which the disciplinary proceedings were going on but elected to stay away. He did not report for duty from 23rd February, 1989 till the order of dismissal from service was passed against him by the respondent No. 4 – Disciplinary Authority2 on 20th December, 1991. It took the appellant seven long years to approach the Appellate Authority3 against the dismissal order passed against him sometime in the year 1998. The Appellate Authority3 rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant as also the Review Petition12 filed by him vide orders dated 31st December, 1998 and 3rd July, 2001, respectively. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have gone through the records and concurred with the findings returned by the Disciplinary Authority2. The factum of the appellant having been discharged in the criminal case would not be of any material consideration as the Disciplinary Authority2 had taken action against the appellant for remaining absent from duty which is clearly brought out from the record.
8. In view of the aforesaid observations, the present appeal is dismissed as meritless while leaving the parties to bear their own expenses.
———
1 D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) DR (J) No. 7244/2009
2 District Superintendent of Police, Barmer (Rajasthan)
3 Deputy Inspector General of Respondent Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
4 Rajasthan Patrika
5 Criminal Case No. 45/1992
6 For short, ‘the NDPS Act’
7 under Sections 8/21 read with 29 of the NDPS Act
8 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2309 of 2002.
9 Order dated 20.12.1991
10 Order dated 21.10.2008
11 Order dated 16.05.2011
12 No. F.9(51) Home-1/99 Jaipur
