2024 (1) TMI 1152 - SC - Indian Laws

Dismissal from service - Disciplinary proceedings against police officer - appellant has been acquitted in the criminal case - Involvement in Customs case of Smuggling of heroin - multiple proceedings - HELD THAT - 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 Authority on 20th December, 1991. It took the appellant seven long years to approach the Appellate Authority against the dismissal order passed against him sometime in the year 1998. The factum of the appellant having been discharged in the criminal case would not be of any material consideration as the Disciplinary Authority1 had taken action against the appellant for remaining absent from duty which is clearly brought out from the record. The present appeal is dismissed as meritless while leaving the parties to bear their own expenses.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The appeal against dismissal order due to absconding and subsequent disciplinary action.

Issue 1: Absconding and Dismissal Order

The appellant, a Constable in Rajasthan Police, was accused of involvement in heroin smuggling in 1989. He absconded, leading to his suspension and subsequent dismissal in 1991. The appellant did not participate in the departmental inquiry and remained absent from duty until the dismissal order was issued. Despite being acquitted in the criminal case in 1998, the disciplinary action was taken based on his prolonged absence from duty, not the criminal charges. The Appellate Authority and Review Petition upheld the dismissal, emphasizing the appellant's voluntary absence and failure to participate in the proceedings.

Issue 2: Legal Challenge and Appeal

In 2002, the appellant filed a writ petition challenging his dismissal, which was rejected by the Single Judge and upheld by the Division Bench. The appellant's counsel argued that the dismissal was excessive considering his clean antecedents before 1989, lack of proper service of chargesheet and dismissal order, and acquittal in the criminal case. However, the Court found the appellant's deliberate avoidance of inquiry proceedings, prolonged absence from duty, and delayed appeal to be significant factors. The Court affirmed the decisions of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority, and Review Petition, concluding that the dismissal was justified based on the appellant's conduct.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as meritless, noting that the appellant's actions, including deliberate avoidance of inquiry and prolonged absence from duty, justified the dismissal. The Court emphasized that the disciplinary action was based on the appellant's conduct related to duty absence, not the criminal case outcome. The parties were directed to bear their own expenses in the matter.