Rajasthan High Court Ends Ex-Constable's Two-Decade Legal Struggle
The Rajasthan High Court has firmly dismissed a former police constable's legal battle that spanned nearly twenty years. The court upheld her compulsory retirement from service, emphasizing that habitual absenteeism severely undermines discipline in a force like the police.
Justice Anand Sharma Upholds Disciplinary Action
Justice Anand Sharma heard the plea of the former head constable, who was originally appointed in 1990. The authority concerned penalized her with compulsory retirement in 2008. The court noted she had a long history of wilful absence, accumulating to as many as 1,580 days over her service period.
The woman faced minor and major penalties on six different occasions for similar allegations of absenteeism. She did not show any improvement and repeated her misconduct, according to the court order. The petitioner was seeking reinstatement with all service benefits after the review authority rejected her plea in 2012.
Court's Reasoning on Discipline and Fairness
The disciplinary proceedings were conducted by the employer to maintain discipline, integrity, and efficiency in service. The departmental enquiry followed the prescribed procedure, offering the petitioner adequate opportunity at every stage. However, she failed to cooperate effectively.
Allegations of bias against the enquiry officer were not supported by specific details. The court stated that inviting re-evaluation of evidence is wholly impermissible. The disciplinary authority considered the gravity of misconduct, past service record, and impact on force discipline.
The penalty of compulsory retirement reflects a lenient and sympathetic approach rather than a punitive one, the court observed.
Arguments from Both Sides
The petitioner's counsel, advocate Tanmay Dhand, argued the punishment was shockingly disproportionate and arbitrary. Key points included:
- Statements of state witnesses were recorded in her absence.
- She was not supplied copies of statements or allowed to cross-examine witnesses.
- Denial of cross-examination and defence evidence made the proceedings null and void.
- Consistent denial of documents suggested a predetermined mindset.
On the other hand, the state's advocate, deputy government counsel Saumitra Chaturvedi, contended judicial review in disciplinary matters is extremely limited. Major arguments were:
- The enquiry was fair, with findings supported by evidence.
- The penalty matches the gravity of misconduct and past service record.
- The petitioner had adequate opportunities but adopted a non-cooperative attitude.
- Punishment is proportionate given her habitual wilful absenteeism.
Background of the Case
The petitioner was appointed as a constable in 1990 and later promoted to head constable. In October 2007, she was sanctioned casual leave for around 15 days. She then applied for privilege leave from late October to early November, followed by Deepawali holidays.
She allegedly fell sick on October 22 and informed officials telephonically. However, she was treated as absent without proper information, leading to suspension in November 2007 and a departmental enquiry.
A preliminary enquiry on November 27, 2007, was conducted without disclosing charges or supplying documents. A report in December 2007 recommended departmental action. A chargesheet in March 2008 cited willful absence from October 2007 and past instances of prolonged absence.
The charge sheet also mentioned misbehaviour with neighbours in police quarters, bringing disrepute to the department. In August 2008, the enquiry officer reported all charges proved. Compulsory retirement was imposed via a September 2008 order.
The petitioner moved the appellate authority in 2009 and the review authority in 2012, but both rejected her plea, leading to the High Court case.
