IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No. 17677 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 18, 2009
HARPAL SINGH
....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
.... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: Mr. Sarabjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
AJAI LAMBA, J.
This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari
quashing order dated 7.10.2005 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 1.12.2006
(Annexure P-3). Second prayer is that order dated 9.6.2006 (Annexure P-
2) be held to be legal and, therefore, the same be upheld.
A perusal of the order (Annexure P-1) indicates that the
petitioner, who was serving as a Constable at Rani Ka Bagh, Police Station
Civil Lines, Amritsar, went absent without sanctioned leave or permission
Civil Writ Petition No. 17677 of 2009 2
of the competent authority on 7.9.2004. He, accordingly, was marked
absent on the said date and his services were placed under suspension vide
order dated 21.12.2004. A departmental inquiry was ordered. The
petitioner resumed duty on 1.5.2005 i.e. after an absence of 7 months and
24 days. Copy of the inquiry report has not been placed on record. Be
that as it may, considering the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer
holding the petitioner guilty of the charges, and relevant circumstances,
Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, ordered dismissal of the
petitioner from service with effect from 7.10.2005. The period of absence
has been directed to be treated as non-duty period.
It seems that the petitioner carried an appeal to the Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar. After considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, it has been recorded that the
petitioner had committed misconduct and had further shown
incorrigibility and complete unfitness to continue to serve in police
service. However, taking a lenient view, the punishment of dismissal has
been reduced to punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service on
permanent basis for annual increments.
The Inspector General of Police, Border Zone, Amritsar, on
an appeal having been preferred by the department, revived the order of
punishment imposed by the Senior Superintendent of Police and set aside
the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Border
Range, Amritsar, whereby the punishment had been reduced, as noticed
above.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders (Annexure P-1 and
Civil Writ Petition No. 17677 of 2009 3
P-3). He, however, accepts the order passed by the Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar (Annexure P-2).
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was a
family property dispute on account of which the petitioner could not join
duty. The punishment of dismissal from service, accordingly, is harsh.
Complete justice has been done by the Deputy Inspector General of
Police, Border Range, Amritsar, by way of passing order (Annexure P-2).
No other argument has been raised.
I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
It remains admitted position that the petitioner remained
absent without sanctioned leave or intimation to senior officers for 7
months and 24 days in a disciplined force. It is not the case of the
petitioner that due process of law and procedure was not followed. It is
further not the case of the petitioner that opportunity of hearing was not
given to the petitioner, as required by the mandate of law.
A perusal of the order (Annexure P-1) shows that the
petitioner had been in service since 1988. Out of his total service of 17
years, due to different reasons, 20 years service had been reduced. The
past conduct and antecedents of the petitioner show that he was a habitual
offender and had shown no sign of an attempt to improve his conduct so
as to serve the disciplined force. The reason for absence i.e. a property
dispute in the family, cannot be considered to be a sufficient reason not to
give prior information to the employer/senior officers or for going absent
without sanctioned leave in a disciplined force.
Civil Writ Petition No. 17677 of 2009 4
The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Border Range,
Amritsar, while dealing with the issue, has recorded in the following
terms:-
“5. I have carefully gone through the appeal of the
appellant as well as other relevant record and found that the
appellant remained absent from duty on his own without any
leave or permission from the competent authority. If he was
having some domestic problem, he could have appeared
before his senior officers to get his leave sanctioned but he
did not bother about this. I have also scrutinized his previous
service record and found that he was habitual of remaining
absent from duty. He has again been held guilty of the same
mis-conduct i.e. absence from duty, the cumulative effect of
which go to prove his incorrigibility and complete unfitness
of the police service. He has rightly been dismissed from
service by the punishing authority and the order of
punishment is legal and operative. I see no reason to differ
with the punishing authority.”
Having recorded thus, I find no reason for the Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar, to have taken a
lenient view. The family circumstances on account of which lenient view
has been taken, have not been enumerated in the order (Annexure P-2).
The assurance of the petitioner, in view of past conduct and antecedents of
the petitioner, should have been considered as an irrelevant circumstance
to show leniency. Out of 17 years of actual service, due to various
reasons, 20 years of service had already been reduced.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the order
passed by the Inspector General of Police, Border Zone, Amritsar, in
upholding the order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Amritsar, directing dismissal of the petitioner from service, calls for no
Civil Writ Petition No. 17677 of 2009 5
interference.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
November 18, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?