JAGDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Constable Jagdev Singh was dismissed from service by the order of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Barnala dated 14th September, 1993. A departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 14.9.1993 met the same fate, vide order dated 5.4.1994 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala. The petitioner challenges these two orders in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Precise facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was enrolled in the Punjab Police Service on 18th August, 1973. During the course of service, the petitioner was given different commendation certificates from 1983 to 1986. From 3rd October, 1991 to 7th November, 1991 the petitioner remained absent, again he remained absent from 8th November, 1991 to 28th February, 1992. A departmental inquiry was conducted and thereafter the Senior Superintendent of Police, Barnala imposed the punishment of dismissal from service upon the petitioner, vide order dated 14.9.1993. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order, which, was already noticed, was also dismissed. Even the revision petition preferred before the Director General of Police, Punjab was dismissed on 5.5.1999.

(3.) According to the petitioner, the impugned orders inflicting the punishment of dismissal from service are violative of the rules and are contrary to the settled cannons of law. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that unauthorised absence is not the mis-conduct of such gravest nature that should vest the petitioner with such severe punishment. While passing the impugned orders, the Senior Superintendent of Police and even the appellate authority have not considered the length of service and whether the petitioner was incorrigible officer or not. In these circumstances, the provision of Rule 16.2.(1) of the Punjab Police Rules have been violated. Thus, the order of dismissal is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the alternative contended that at best the respondents should have imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement, rather than dismissal from service, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Ex-Constable Ranbir Singh No. 323/SPT v. The State of Haryana and others, 1999 2 SCT 58.