VIRENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition challenges the order of termination passed against a Police Constable, who had put in 6 years of service at the time when he was served with notice to show cause why he shall not be removed from service pursuant to the enquiry constituted against him. The enquiry was in relation to a charge issued for unauthorized absence from the period from 17.01.1991 to 29.01.1991. The enquiry had proceeded ex parte after the service on the father of the petitioner. The notice had spelt out that the reply shall be given within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. The petitioner would aver that he received notice on 24.05.1991, but even before the expiry of 15 days provided, the respondent had caused an order of dismissal to be made on 05.06.1991.

(2.) THERE are other aspects of the case as well, namely, of the alleged justification for the absence due to illness of the petitioner when he was in the hospital and when a telegram had been issued on his behalf on 18.01.1991. Indeed, he had also rejoined duty on 29.01.1991 and he had gone on leave only after 29.03.1991 when he alleged to have been admitted in the hospital for a fresh bout of illness. The charge was not in relation to the subsequent absence but confined to the period when he was absent and the proceedings had been initiated subsequent to the time when he had actually rejoined duty and gone absent again from 31.03.1991. I have merely enumerated the other facts for the sake of completion of narration but before detailed arguments went underway, I asked the counsel for the State to explain why an un -refuted statement regarding the receipt of show cause notice on 24.05.1991 was dealt with by an order of dismissal even without waiting for a reply within the time prescribed in the notice itself. The counsel would only state that the order was passed within 15 days from the date of issue of notice. It will be wrong to take the 15 days' period to commence from the date of issuance, for, the date of receipt of notice alone could be relevant for a person to respond within the time that the notice itself provided. The show cause notice specifically uses the expression that the reply was to be given within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. If a decision to terminate the services was issued, even before a reply could be given then it only means that there was a pre -judgment of pre -conceived approach to a charge that was taken as established and it made irrelevant any answer or response from the petitioner. There was a clear case of violation of natural justice and the order of termination cannot stand judicial scrutiny. The order of dismissal is quashed.

(3.) THE writ petition is ordered on the above terms.