JAGBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing of order dated 17th June, 1980 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sonepat dismissing the Petitioner from the post of Constable on the ground of absence from duty. The order passed by the Superintendent of Police has been affirmed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range, Gurgaon and Inspector General of Police, Haryana, - -vide order dated 6th September, 1981 and order 20th March, 1986 passed in appeal and revision respectively. The aforementioned orders Annexures P -2 and P -3 have also been made subject matter of challenge in the instant petition. Thereafter, the memorial filed by the Petitioner Annexure P -7 has also been rejected by His Excellency the Governor of Haryana.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the Petitioner joined as Constable in Sonepat district on 1st January, 1972. On 15th May, 1979, FIR No. 88 was registered against him at Police Station Gohana accusing him with the commission of offence under Sections 354 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. He was placed under suspension on 17th May, 1979 and his headquarters was fixed at Police Lines, Sonepat. On account of his absence from duty, Respondent No. 4 served a charge -sheet on him levelling allegations that he remained absent from duty without any sanctioned leave. A regular departmental enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer gave categorical findings that the Petitioner was guilty of the charges of absence from duty from 5th October, 1979 to 6th October, 1979, 8th January, 1980 and 26th February, 1980. However, he was not awarded any punishment for the other two periods for which he was alleged to be absent i.e. 17th October, 1979 and 20th/21st October, 1979 as punishment had already been awarded. The Superintendent of police, - -vide order dated 17th June, 1980 dismissed the Petitioner from service. The aforementioned order reads as under:

(3.) IN the written statement filed by Respondents 1 to 3, the stand taken is that the police force is a disciplinary force and no indiscipline can be favourably viewed. Reliance has also been placed on the provisions of Rule 16.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to Haryana (for brevity, 'the Rules') which provides that a suspended police officer is under an obligation to the same responsibilities, discipline and penalties and to the same authorities as if he has not been suspended. It further provides that once he was posted to the lines by virtue of Sub -rule (2) of Rule 16.21 of the Rules, he was under an obligation to attend all roll calls and to perform all such duties as the Superintendent of Police might direct.