SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for directing the respondents to decide the Mercy Petition preferred by the petitioner and the prayer has also been made that the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 30.03.2007 (Annexure P-13) is not sustainable as the same is a non-speaking order.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner proceeded on 30 days earned leave. He fell ill and thereafter, couldnot rejoin his duties for 195 days which is beyond the date of his leave, for which a department enquiry was held, in which he was held guilty and the punishing authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, vide his order dated 23.12.2006, imposed the punishment of stoppage of six future annual increments with permanent effect. Against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak, which, on consideration, was partly allowed vide impugned order dated 30.03.2007 (Annexure P-13) by reducing the punishment to stoppage of three annual increments with permanent effect. He contends that the petitioner has been denied the wages for the period he had remained absent and, therefore, he is entitled to the same although the said period has been regularized. His contention is that after the regularization of the period, for which he had remained absent, no punishment could be imposed on him as the said period stands condoned. In support of this contention, counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of State of Punjab vs. Balkar Singh,2000 2 SCT 565 and Punjab State v. Rur Singh (died) through his L.Rs.,2000 2 SCT 60, to contend that the punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with permanent effect could not have been imposed on the petitioner by the respondents.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance, have gone through the records of the case.