PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order of dismissal dated 4.7.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga and order dated 5.12.2007 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur Cantt-respondent No. 3 rejecting the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the said orders are illegal, unjust, unlawful and unconstitutional and violative of the provisions of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as '1934 Rules'). Petitioner was enrolled as a Constable on regular basis in Punjab Police on 24.4.1990. He was performing his duties and was posted in Police Station (City), Moga in October 2006 when due to ill-health of his wife, he proceeded on 7 days' casual leave after getting it duly sanctioned by the Competent Authority. He rejoined the duty, but since the illness of his wife prolonged, he again proceeded on leave to attend his ailing wife. Further extension of leave was sought by the petitioner through telegrams. However, the same was not sanctioned and he was deemed to be absent from duty since 23.10.2006 to 4.1.2007. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 28.12.2006 and a charge-sheet dated 15.1.2007 was served upon the petitioner for remaining absent from duty for a period of two months, 13 days, 4 hours and 50 minutes. It was asserted that he was marked absent on 23.10.2006 when he was not found present at 7.40 a.m. at the time of counting of employees and thereafter he reported for duty on 4.1.2007 at 11.30 a.m. This period of absence was without permission/leave which grossly violated the discipline of the Police Department. Regular departmental enquiry was initiated against him. Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report dated 19.2.2007 (Annexure P-2) wherein petitioner was held guilty of absence from duty for two months, 13 days, 4 hours and 50 minutes without leave/permission. On receipt of the enquiry report, Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga served a notice dated 20.6.2007 on the petitioner to show-cause as to why punishment of dismissal from service be not imposed upon him in the light of the enquiry report and his previous service record which showed that he was a habitual absentee. This show-cause notice was received by the petitioner along with the enquiry report under his own signatures on 21.6.2007. Petitioner was given 10 days' time to file reply to the notice and was directed to appear before the Punishing Authority in person if he wanted to produce any defence.

(2.) Petitioner preferred not to file any written reply to the notice but presented himself before the Punishing Authority and stated that due to illness of his wife, he could not come present on duty and had remained absent. He, however, was unable to produce any evidence to show that his wife was ill and that she had taken treatment for her illness. Finding the explanation of the petitioner to be not satisfactory, the Punishing Authority came to the conclusion that his absence from duty for such a long period proved it to be a gross departmental misconduct which cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force like the Police and keeping in view his earlier service record of his being habitual absentee, it was concluded that he was an incorrigible employee and if allowed to continue, would adversely affect the other employees also and the discipline of the force would suffer. Taking this into consideration, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from service vide impugned order dated 4.7.2007 (Annexure P-3). The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of his dismissal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur Cantt-respondent No. 3 was rejected vide order dated 5.12.2007 (Annexure P-5). These two orders are under challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders have been passed by the respondents in violation of Rule 16.2(1) of the 1934 Rules as the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is not commensurate to the charges levelled against him. It is further asserted that the punishment of dismissal from service can be imposed upon an employee in a gravest act of misconduct or a cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for the police force. Absence from duty, as in the case of the petitioner, cannot be termed as the gravest act of misconduct and, therefore, the order of dismissal from service cannot sustain. He has further contended that as per the requirement of Rule 16.2(1) of the 1934 Rules, it is mandated upon the Punishing Authority to take into consideration the length of service of the offender and his claim for pension prior to passing the order of punishment. Petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 24.4.1990 and till the date of his dismissal from service i.e. 4.7.2007, he had completed more than 17 years of service which would entitle him to the grant of pension, which aspect has not been taken into consideration by the Punishing Authority, as according to him, an employee with 10 years' service can be granted pension on termination of his services. He asserts that the Punishing Authority and the Appellate Authority have not taken into consideration the justifiable reasons of the petitioner for absenting himself from duty which is ill-health of his wife and since he was taking care of his wife, he could not come present on duty, which aspect has been overlooked by the respondents and proceeded to impose a punishment of dismissal from service. Reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dhan Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2009 LabIC 12 (P&H) to contend that absence from duty is not a gravest act of misconduct which would have an effort of imposing the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. For the claim of pension also, reliance has been placed upon the said judgment. Accordingly, prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned orders and continuance of the petitioner in service.