JUDGMENT
Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.
1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the orders dated 16-6-1982 (Annex. 4), 28-2-1983/1-3-1183 (Annex.6) and 2-5-1984 (Annex.7).
2. The petitioner was serving as a Constable in the Police Department and he was charge-sheeted and an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1958’) was initiated against him. The charge against the petitioner was that he remained absent from 28-5-1981 to 4-2-1982 and despite notices he did not report on duty. The petitioner submitted his reply to to the charge-sheet and explained that on 13-5-1981 he left the police line after seeking permission from the R.I. Police Line and he also sought permission to leave the Head Quarter. Thereafter he applied for 5 days C.L. and one day’s permission to leave Head Quarter and the same was granted to him and he was supposed to report on duty on 28-5-1981. Unfortunately during this period the father of the petitioner became the victim of gangesters and he was hospitalised. Therefore he was looking after his father’s welfare. He further submits that this incident was further followed by a dispute with regard to land with the people of village Dawli and on account of that dispute the petitioner was also implicated in a criminal case under Section 307 IPC and he was detained in judicial custody and after some time he was released on bail. After release on bail there arose a dispute. Therefor, the petitioner submits that on account of unavoidable circumstances he could not attend the office. It was also submitted that during the period of absence no notice was served on him nor the same were served on any of the memberr of his family. However, the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory The Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the matter and the enquiry was conducted by the Dy. Superintendent of Police Churu. The petitioner submitted that he did not receive any notice from the Enquiry Officer. He does not know whether any enquiry officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer in his report stated that four time summons have been issued to the delinquent but he did not report before the Enquiry Officer, therefore the enquiry could not be proceeded under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and a resort was taken to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1958. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and found the petitioner guilty. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of removal of the petitioner from service. Against the order of the Disciplinary Authority the petitioner preferred an appeal before the non-petitioner No. 2. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a review petition under Rule 34 of the Rules of 1958 and the review petition was also dismissed. In these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
3. Mr. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the resort taken by the authorities to Rule 19(2) is absolutely wrong and illegal for dispensing with the regular enquiry under Rule 16. Thus, the learned Counsel submits that the whole conduct of the enquiry and the order passed thereon are bad and the same may be set aside.
4. The first and foremost question is that what is the scope of rule 19(2) of the Rules of 1958. Rule 19 reads as under:
19. Special Procedure in Certain cases.–Notwithstanding any thing contained in Rules 16, 17 and 18,
(i) where a penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or
(ii) where the disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in the said rules; or
(iii) where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to follow such procedure, the disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders as it deems fit.
Provided that Commission shall be consulted before passing such orders in any case in which such consultation is necessary.
Note:–If any question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to give any person an opportunity of showing cause under Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution, the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss, or remove such person or to reduce him in rank, as the case may be, shall be subject to only one appeal to the next higher authority.
Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 19 contemplates that if it is found that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed under Rules 16,17 and then the disciplinary Authority for reasons to be recorded in writing can dispense with the enquiry. In the present case, it appears from the order of the disciplinary Authority that it was satisfied that since the petitioner has, knowing fully well the charges against him, is deliberately avoiding the service of notices and did not appear before the Enquiry Officer, he dispensed with the enquiry and a resort was taken to Rule 19(2). He found the petitioner guilty of wilfully remaining absent from duty therefore he was dismissed from service.
5. Mr. Singhvi submits that even if the petitioner has not joined the enquiry it is open for the disciplinary Authority or the Enquiry Officer to proceed ex-parte. Learned counsel submits that there was no occasion to resorting to Rule 19(2). The submission of the learned Counsel does not appear to be well founded. In view of the provisions of Rule 19 a power has been conferred upon the Disciplinery Authority that if it is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 16 then the regular procedure can be dispensed with. Since in view of the special power conferred upon the disciplinary authority under Rule 19 and in view of the fact that the petitioner inspite of notices has not appeared before the Enquiry Officer if the disciplinary authority has dispensed with the regular enquiry as contemplated under Rule 16 then in that case it cannot be sai that the exercise of the power by the disciplinary Authority under Rule 19 is bad in any respect. It is true that Enquiry Officer could have proceeded ex-parte with the enquiry without taking resort to Rule 19(2). But if the vigilant disciplinary Authority has taken resort to Rule 19(2) on account of the peculiar circumstances of the case that the petitioner knowing fully well that he has been charge sheeted and several times notices were sent to his house and all the time report was received from the Police Station Bhirani that the petitioner was not available and the notices were left at the house of the petitioner. This only shows that the petitioner deliberately avoided the service of notice and did not cooperate with the Enquiry Officer and acted in the most grossly indisciplined manner. It is least expected from a disciplined force official to avoid service of notice and avoid to appear before the Enquiry Officer for one reason or the other and such conduct cannot be lightly condoned.
6. Mr. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner in this connection has invited my attention to the decisions of their Lordships of Supreme Court in The Imperial Tobacco Company of India Ltd. v. Its Workmen ; K.C. Joshi v. Union of India and Ors. ; Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer and Ors. and Chandu Lal v. Management of Pan American World Airways Inc. . All the cases cited by the learned Counsel do not deal with situation in hand and the rules like 19(2) of the Rules of 1958. Therefore, they do not provide any assistance to the learned Counsel. Rather cases which are more relevant in the line is Union of India and Anr. v. Tulsi Ram Patel and Shivaji Atmaji Sawant v. Maharashtra and Ors. In these circumstances, their Lordships emphasised that the reason for dispensing with the enquiry can be contained in the final order. The reason given by the disciplinary Authority is that the petitioner deliberately did not appear in the enquiry inspite of knowing fully well that the enquiry is pending and deliberately absented from his house so as to avoid the enquiry.
7. Thus, in this view of the matter, I do not think that it is a fit case for interference. The writ petition is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.