Allahabad High Court · 2025 on 17 Feb 2025

Judgment

1. Heard Shri Gyanendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Indrajeet Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 15.10.2007 passed by the Superintendent of Police (Railway) Moradabad, whereby it was ordered that the petitioner will not be entitled for salary for the period from 11.10.2006 to 09.12.2006 during which he remained absent unauthorizedly. He also challenged another order passed on the same date by the Superintendent of Police concerned inflicting a punishment of stoppage of annual increment for one year, without cumulative effect for the petitioner's unauthorized absence.

3. The petitioner had filed an appeal against both the orders, which was dismissed by means of separate orders passed by the Deputy General of Police (Railways), Lucknow on 28.07.2008. Thereafter the petitioner had submitted a revision against the order denying payment of salary to the petitioner for the period during which he was absent unauthorizely and the said revision was dismissed as time barred by means of an order dated 16.08.2010.

4. The petitioner had challenged all the aforesaid orders by filing Claim Petition No.46 of 2011 before the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, which was dismissed by means of a judgment and order dated 17.12.2021. The petitioner thereafter filed a Review Petition No.34 of 2020, which too was dismissed by means of an order dated

17.12.2021.

5. All the aforesaid orders have been challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition.

6. While the petitioner was posted as a constable at Police Station GRP, Shamli, Moradabad, he proceeded for ten days' casual leave on

01.10.2006 but he resumed his duty on 09.12.2006. On 31 03.2007, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why he should not be punished under Rule 4(i)(b)(iii) of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (here-in-after referred to as 'the Rules of 1991') by withholding his annual increment for a period of one year.

7. On 07.04.2007 the petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice dated 31.03.2007 stating that his wife had fallen down from the roof top of his house and there was no other person except him to look after her and, therefore, he could not join the duty immediately after expiry of his leave. He further stated that he had informed the Superintendent of Police concerned about the aforesaid incident.

8. The petitioner claims that the punishment order was passed without considering the reply submitted by him.

9. The State filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was given a proper opportunity of hearing and the punishment order was passed in accordance with law. The Tribunal has held that admittedly the petitioner had proceeded on casual leave for ten days on 01.10.2006 and he returned to rejoin his duty only on 09.12.2006. Thus, he remained absent from duty from 11.10.2006 to 08.12.2006 without any prior sanction of leave.

10. The procedure for inflicting minor punishments is contained in Rule 4(i)(b)(iii) of the Rules of 1991 which provides as follows: "14. pcedure for concluding departmental proceedings.- (1) subject to the provisions contained in these Rules, the departmental proceedings in the cases referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 5 against the police officers may be conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Appendix-I. (2) Notwithstanding any thing contained in sub-rule (1) punishments in cases referred to in sub-rule (2) of rule 5 may be imposed after informing the police officer in writing of the action proposed to be taken' against him and of the imputations of act or omission on which it is proposed to be taken and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal.'"

11. The Tribunal held that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice, wherein the substance of charges against him was clearly mentioned. He was given an opportunity of hearing for submitting his explanation that he could not join the duty in time as his wife had fallen down from roof and he had submitted her medical report to the Superintendent of Police concerned. The Tribunal has held that mere intimation of the medial report does not entitle an employee to be absent from duty without seeking leave.

12. Assailing the validity of the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's wife was treated at Ursula Horsman Memorial District Hospital, Kanpur Nagar and he has annexed a copy of her prescription as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Annexure 2 is a medical certificate certifying that Mrs. Sudha, aged 32 years, W/o Shyam Kishor Awasthi was under treatment for ICC/P/ P from 11.10.2006 to 06.12.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that this medical report had been sent to the Superintendent of Police through registered post.

13. Copies of the postal receipts annexed with the writ petition as Annexure 3 indicate that the articles through registered post were sent on 09.10.2006. The petitioner claims that his wife had fallen down on

09.10.2006 and he had sent the medical report on the same day whereas the medical report has been prepared on 06.12.2006 and it could not have been sent on 09.10.2006. Moreover, merely sending a medical report or a prescription will not be sufficient in absence of the petitioner having submitted an application for grant of leave.

14. It is mentioned in the punishment order that the petitioner had submitted in his reply to the show cause notice that he had remained absent from duty due to his wife having fallen down from roof top of his house and prior to it, he had not remained absent without any leave on any occasion. However, the Assistant Character Role Clerk, Constable Subhash Chandra had given a statement that the petitioner is working in the police department since 01.10.1984. He was awarded a censure entry in the year 1999 for unauthorized absence and he has been given punishment of physical drill on eight occasions-once for gambling and on seven occasions for unauthorized absence.

15. Therefore, it appears that the petitioner's contention that he had never absented without sanctioned leave on earlier occasion, is false. The authorities have passed the impugned order after taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the Tribunal has also dealt with the matter keeping in view the entire relevant facts and circumstances of the case as well as the provisions contained in Rule 4(i)(b)(iii) of the Rules of 1991.

16. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we find no illegality in the impugned orders.

17. The writ petition lacks merit, which is hereby dismissed. (Subhash Vidyarthi J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi J.) Order Date: 17.02.2025 akhilesh/- AKHILESHWAR KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench