CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6102 of 2009 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: August 04, 2009
Ram Dhari
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana & others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana,
for the State.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner, a dismissed Constable, has filed this writ
petition to impugn the order of his dismissal. The petitioner was
enrolled as Constable on 11.11.1991. He claims to have worked with
due diligence. On 21.5.2008, the petitioner was issued a show cause
notice with the allegation that he was directed to report for duty at
Gurgaon but had remained absent and, thus, had shown indiscipline
and carelessness. The petitioner was charge sheeted. Accordingly
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6102 of 2009 :{ 2 }:
an Enquiry Officer was detailed to conduct a departmental enquiry.
The Enquiry Officer ultimately submitted his report on 21.5.2008,
finding the petitioner guilty of the charge preferred against him.
Accordingly, he was issued show cause notice for dismissal from
service. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply, pleading that he
was sick and had received treatment. He also submitted a proof in
this regard. Considering the pleas raised by the petitioner and the
enquiry report, the Superintendent of Police, Panchkula, dismissed
the petitioner from service on 20.6.2008. The petitioner has remained
unsuccessful in his appeal as well as revision and has, thus, filed the
present writ petition.
The final enquiry report is annexed with the petition as
Annexure P-1. Perusal of enquiry report would show that witnesses
were examined not only to prove the absence of the petitioner but
also to record evidence about the other misconducts committed by
the petitioner. The petitioner was given proper opportunity to lead his
defence and he has examined three witnesses in support of his case.
It is held that the petitioner had remained absent for 203 days from
15.8.2007 to 5.3.2008 and accordingly the charge levelled against
him is statedly proved.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would first contend
that the charge alleged against the petitioner was different than what
has been finally held proved. The counsel then says that previous
record of the petitioner has been taken into consideration, which is
not proper. Plea also is that no consideration was given to the
service rendered by the petitioner while passing the order of
dismissal and this would be in violation of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6102 of 2009 :{ 3 }:
Police Rules (for short “the Rules”) and a mandatory requirement.
There is no substance in any of the arguments raised by
the counsel for the petitioner. In the charge alleged against the
petitioner, it is clearly disclosed that he was transferred from
Panchkula to Gurgaon, but he did not report for duty at Gurgaon
Division. He, thus, was charged for being absent with effect from
15.8.2007 till he reported. The previous conduct of the petitioner may
have weighed with the authorities at the time of passing the
punishment but was not taken into consideration for establishing the
charge of absence as levelled. Similarly, the submission made by the
petitioner that his service was not taken into consideration is factually
incorrect. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice and in
response he had filed his reply. In his reply, the petitioner had made
a mention to his 16 years of service. This fact is noticed in the
impugned order. The plea of the petitioner that he is the only bread
earner of the family is also noticed in the impugned order.
Superintendent of Police, Panchkula, while passing the impugned
order, duly considered the service rendered by the petitioner. This
aspect is noticed in the impugned order. It is observed that the
service record of the delinquent is considered and it is found that he
does not fulfill the condition of getting pension and other financial
benefits. It would, thus, show that the requirement of Rule 16.2 of the
Rules was kept in view by Superintendent of Police, Panchkula, while
passing the order of dismissal. The impugned order of dismissal,
thus, can not be faulted on this ground.
Even otherwise, the respondents had considered the
various aspects of the evidence and the material on record to pass
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6102 of 2009 :{ 4 }:
the impugned order. No case, thus, is made out for interfering in the
impugned order on any of the grounds as advanced.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
August 04, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE