CONSTABLE OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order a bunch of writ petitions (CWP Nos.725, 1520,1521, 7944 of 1993 and 801 of 1994) are being disposed of as one of the questions raised is common in all the writ petitions. Main judgment is prepared, in C.W.P. No.725 of 1993.

(2.) Constable Om Parkash, the petitioner, was enrolled on November 17, 1976. In April 1991, a charge-sheet was served upon him on the allegations that he remained absent from duty from July 21, 1990 to August 20, 1990. It may be observed that he was suspended on January 19, 1990 and re-instated on May 27, 1990. Annexure P.1 is copy of the charge-sheet. Superintendent of Police ultimately dismissed the petitioner vide order Annexure P.2 passed on July 17, 1991. He preferred appeal- Annexure P.3 which was dismissed vide order Annexure P.4 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. He preferred a revision petition-Annexure P.5 which was dismissed on April 20, 1992, vide order Annexure P.6 by the Director General of Police on November 20, 1992. These orders are challenged in this writ petition inter alia on the ground that the misconduct of absence from duty for a spell of 50 days is not the gravest act of misconduct calling for imposition of dismissal from duty under Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules. Secondly that during the period of suspension it was not the duty of the petitioner to record attendance every day at the roll call. Such absence of the petitioner could not be termed as a misconduct to call for imposition of penalty.

(3.) On notice of motion having been issued the writ petition has been contested by the respondents inter alia asserting that the penalty of dismissal imposed is in accordance with the Punjab Police Rules 16.2 and 16.24//Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules as applicable in Haryana reads as under:-