ORDER
Shethna, J.
1. Learned counsel Mr. Gaur for the appellant/petitioner submitted that the appellant belonging to Scheduled Caste is done great injustice by
way of termination from service for merely remaining absent from duty without leave, therefore, the impugned order of termination be quashed and se! aside.
(2). It is true that the services of the appellant were terminated on the ground of remaining absent from duty without leave for 162 days. If he was in the other department, then there would have been a different consideration but the appellant was in police department which is a disciplined force where such along absence of 162 days from duly without any leave should be viewed as a serious mis-conduct for which no other order except the order of termination could be passed.
(3). From the impugned order of termination at Annex. 7 passed by the Superintendent of Police, it also appears that on earlier occasion also, the appellant remained absent from duty for 43 days. It also appears that though he was served with a notice to show cause with a warning to immediately report failing which strict disciplinary action will be taken against him. He joined the duties only after 3 months.
(4). The excuse given by the appellant that he left the duty without informing any one and without obtaining any leave because his mother was seriously ill, is no ground at all to condone such serious lapse on his part. He also pleaded that he was ignorant about the rules and regulations of the police department because he was novice. In any case, it was submitted by learned counsel Mr. Gaur that the punishment imposed was highly disproportionate to the misconduct committed by him, therefore, the learned Single Judge should no! have dismissed his writ petition in limit.
(5). It appears from the documents annexed to the petition that he was selected on 17,12,96 for the post of police constable and he joined the duty only on 4,2.97 within 4 months thereof i.e. on 2.6.97 without informing anyone and obtaining leave, he left the duty and remained continuously absent upto 10.11.97 for a period of 162 days. In between he was served with a notice to immediately report to duty but he did not do it for a period of 3 months. Prior to it, he remained absent from duty for 43 days. From the conduct of the petitioner, only inference can be drawn that he was not sincere towards duty. There are all lame excuses offered by the petitioner for continuously remaining absent from duty without leave for as many as 162 days. The ground of sickness of his mother was not al all substantiated by him with the production of medical certificates or examination of doctor.
(6). Under the circumstances, only inference which can be drawn in the matter is that he was absolutely negligent and such a person cannot be kept in service atleast in police department which is a disciplined force.
(7). Considering the mis-conduct of the petitioner, if the authority has thought il fit to determine his services, then this Court cannot sit in appeal over that judgment and in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has also rightly dismissed the writ petition relying upon various Supreme Court judgments referred to by his Lordships in his order. We fully agree with the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge in his judgment for dismissing the writ petition.
(8). In view of the above discussion, we do not find any substance or merits in this special appeal and accordingly it fails and is dismissed.