- (1.)By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order Annexure-4 dated 20the December, 1991 dismissing him from service and a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with full back- wages and all consequential benefits. The orders Annexure-12 dated 31st December, 1998 and Annexure-1 dated 3rd July, 2001 have also been challenged.
(2.)Briefly stated the facts to the extent they are necessary and relevant for the decision of this writ petition are that the petitioner while serving with the respondent on the post of Constable posted at Barmer Remained absent without leave. The reason for petitioner's suddenly absconding from the duty voluntarily without applying and getting the leave sanctioned was that on 21st February, 1989 the Custom Officials of Jodhpur recovered 5-6 kg. heroin form one Khema Ram Jat and during the course of Investigation, accused Khema Ram and one co-accused Nathu Ram informed the Investigating Agency that they received the said contraband heroin from the present petitioner Narendra Singh while he was posted at Barmer. The petitioner was alloted a service residential quarter within the premises of Barmer police line. However, despite extensive search, he could not be traced out. Since the moment the co-accused khema Ram from whose possession very 5-6 kg. contraband was recovered; was arrested by the police, the petitioner absconded from service duty without any information to Barmer police Authorities. The fact of petitioner's having absconded has been recorded in the Roznamcha report no. 1249 dated 23rd February, 1989, Though an extensive search was carried out by the respondents as also by the Investigating Agency investigating crime report involving seizure of herein but the petitioner could not be traced out. The respondents even deployed a police official of the rank of Assistant Sub- Inspector, namely, Faras Ram, ASI appointing him as Special Officer for search of the petitioner, who though came to search him even at jodhpur but could not find him. The petitioner sent certain medical certificates alleged to have been showing himself to be sick from a fake address. even investigation was carried out to find out the petitioner from the address mentioned on the envelop by which the medical certificates on enquiry were found to be not genuine and therefore, the respondents initiated an enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short "the CCA Rules, 1958" hereinafter) against the petitioner. The enquiry was held in accordance with law by following the due procedure prescribed and by impugned order Annexure-4 dated 20th December, 1991 while holding charges as mentioned in memorandum of allegations proved, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The period of absence of the petitioner from the duty was sanctioned as leave without pay and the subsistence allowance payable for the period of suspension was forfeited. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the order Annexure-4 dated 20th December, 1991 before the respondent Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range-jodhpur which came to be dismissed by order Annexure- 12 dated 31st December, 1998, Against which the petitioner preferred a review petition before His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan which also came to be dismissed by order vide Annexure-14 dated 3rd July, 2001, Hence, this writ petition,
(3.)A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents raising preliminary objection that the order dismissing the petitioner from service Annexure-4 is of dated 20th December, 1991 and the writ petition has been filed almost after 11 years from passing of the order of dismissal and therefore, the writ petition suffers from delay and latches. Apart from the fact that writ petition suffers from delay and latches, the respondent state came with a case that the petitioner absconded from duty without leave and remained absent for the reason which even according to the petitioner was that he was involved in a criminal case punishable under the provision of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and apprehending his arrest in the criminal case, he absconded soon after the co-accused Khema Ram Jat was arrested by the authorities of the Custom Department having found him in possession of 5-6 kg. heroin without there being any license to possess such heroin and said heroin was delivered to him by the petitioner. There being no material explaining his absence without leave before the Enquiry officer as well as Disciplinary Authority the Disciplinary Authority rightly concluded the enquiry and dismissed the petitioner from service. The Appellate Authority as well as reviewing Authority have considered the matter in the light of the evidence available on record and did not find any good ground to interfere with the order of dismissal. It has also been averred in the reply that the medical certificates sent by the petitioner from a fake address ultimately were found to be not genuine. Even a Medical Officer of a cadre by which certificate alleged to have been issued, there is no competency to grant such a long medical leave at one stretch Even the respondent made serious efforts to trace out the petitioner and extensive search was carried out by appointing a special officer Faras Ram, ASI for this purpose but could not find him. According to the respondents, the petitioner himself admitted in Annexure-15 that in the service quarter allotted to him at Barmer police Line, his wife and children were staying from 22nd February, 1989 to January 1994. It is not the case of the petitioner that for the said period, the petitioner continued to stay at Barmer in the service quarter, according to the respondent this clearly goes to show that it is admitted case of petitioner that petitioner remained absent without leave w.e.f. 23rd February, 1989 till the completion of enquiry and even thereafter. Lastly, it is submitted that acquittal in criminal case punishable for the offence under NDPS Act by giving benefit of doubt cannot be a ground to interfere with the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service.