RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Constable in the Haryana Police since 19.12.1988. He proceeded on sanctioned leave of 7 days from 1.3.2002. he was to resume duty on 9.3.2002. He actually joined duty on 7.7.2002. He was, therefore, absent without leave for 121 days. After complying with rules of natural justice and holding a regular departmental inquiry, the charge of absence from duty has been held to be proved against the petitioner. He was given show-cause notice seeking his explanation as to why he should not be dismissed from service. After considering the entire matter, the Superintendent of Police by order dated 26.1.2003 has held that no other punishment except the punishment of dismissal will meet the ends of justice as the charge of continuous wilful absence w.e.f. 9.3.2002 has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt. It is not disputed that during the aforesaid absence, the petitioner did not care to send a medical certificate justifying his absence. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal on the basis of Police Rule 16.2 and pleaded that dismissal can only be ordered for the gravest act of misconduct. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been considered and rejected by the appellate authority. Thereafter, the petitioner filed revision petition which has also been dismissed. All the departmental authorities have concurrently come to the conclusion that the conduct of the petitioner is such that only the penalty of dismissal would meet the ends of justice. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the respondents have also considered the record of the petitioner and found that he is a habitual absentee. He is indisciplined and is unwilling to work. During the course of his service he has been awarded several punishments including stoppage of 26 increments with permanent effect. He has been given a number of opportunities to mend himself and to refrain from absenteeism. The latest spell of absence has led the departmental authorities to the conclusion that the petitioner does not deserve to be retained in the Police force.

(2.) Undoubtedly, highest discipline is expected from the members of the Police force. Those who are charged with the task of maintaining rule of law cannot be permitted to disobey the rules themselves with impunity. In such circumstances, it would not be possible to hold that merely because the respondents had failed to use the term that the petitioner has committed the gravest act of misconduct, would render the impugned order in any manner improper or illegal. In such matters the Courts have to look at the substance of the order rather than the form. In our opinion, all the departmental authorities have examined the relevant material to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not fit to be retained in service any more.