Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3576/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3576 of 2010
=========================================================
MAHADEVBHAI
SAVJIBHAI CHAUHAN - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
IS SUPEHIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JK SHAH AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 25/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order of
dismissal from the service dated 28.04.2005, as confirmed by the
appellate and revisional authorities and to direct the respondents to
reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.
2. The
facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as an Unarmed
Police Constable on 01.02.1990. He was served with a charge-sheet
dated 17.09.2004 for holding a departmental inquiry on the ground of
unauthorizedly remaining absent from duty during the period from
28.01.2002 to 09.12.2002. At the end of the inquiry proceedings, the
charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be proved and
therefore, a show-cause Notice dated 07.03.2005 was issued to him as
to why he should not be dismissed from the service. The petitioner
did not submit his reply within the period stipulated in the said
Notice. Therefore, vide impugned order dated 28.04.2005, respondent
no.3 dismissed the petitioner from the service.
3. Against
the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal, which came to be
rejected vide order dated 30.07.2005. Being aggrieved by the same,
the petitioner filed a revision application, which also came to be
rejected vide order dated 17.08.2007. Hence, this petition.
4.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP for the
respondents. From the record, it appears that the petitioner had
unauthorizedly remained absent from duty for a period of 317 days. On
earlier occasions also, the petitioner had remained absent from duty
unauthorizedly for a total period of about 1249 days. There is no
evidence on record to show that the period for which the petitioner
had remained absent from duty was authorized or that the same was
approved by the competent authority. Hence, it is a fact situation
that the petitioner was habitually remaining absent from duties.
5. Looking
to the facts of the case, it would be relevant to refer to a decision
of the Apex Court in the case of L & T Komatsu Ltd. v. N.
Udayakumar, (2008) 1 S.C.C. 224, wherein, it has been held
that habitual absenteeism amounts to gross violation of discipline
and that the consequential action of dismissal from service cannot be
treated to be a harsh punishment.
6. The
facts of this case and of the decision referred to herein above are
similar. Therefore, in my opinion, the authorities below were
completely justified in passing the impugned order of dismissal from
the service. Hence, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the
same.
7. Consequently,
the petition is summarily dismissed.
[K.S.JHAVERI,
J.]
Pravin/*
Top