KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 9.3.2007, whereby, the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the ground of absence of 172 days from duty without considering his length of service. A further prayer has also been made for quashing of impugned orders dated 4.6.2009 and 23.12.2009, whereby, the appeal as well as revision of the petitioner against the order of dismissal have been rejected. A prayer has also been made for issuing directions to the respondents to reconsider the punishment keeping in view the earlier service and to grant consequential benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as Constable in Haryana Police since September, 1989. He was dismissed from service vide order dated 9.3.2007 as he remained absent from duty for a period of 172 days and 6 hours. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed an appeal before Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala, which was rejected on the ground of limitation vide order dated 1.6.2009. Thereafter, revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by Director General of Police vide order dated 23.12.2009.

(3.) LEARNED senior counsel for the petitioner contends that as per Rule 16.2 (1) of Punjab Police Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), the order of dismissal can be passed only for gravest act of misconduct. The absence from duty is not the gravest act as in the explanation to the said Rule, eight categories have been specified. Absence from duty has not been considered as gravest act of misconduct but still the petitioner has been dismissed from service debarring him from civil employment and now he cannot be appointed to any public post. Learned senior counsel further contends that 18 years of service rendered by the petitioner has not been considered while dismissing him from service and penalty imposed upon the petitioner is extremely on higher side. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also contends that the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed only on the ground of delay and the petitioner has not been heard on merits and the impugned order passed in the appeal is also contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is also the argument of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been supplied the requisite documents and, therefore, he could not file reply. Learned senior counsel has also relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Harjit Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab and another : 2007 (4) SLR 645, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra and another : (2014) 9 SCC 129, of this Court in Satbir Singh Constable Vs. The Director General of Police, Haryana and others : 2013 (3) SCT 76, State of Punjab Vs. Gurkeerat Singh, 2002 (3) SCT 623, Dhan Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2009 (1) RSJ 62, Virender Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others : 2014 (1) SCT 561 and Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others : (2013 -1) PLR 323, in support of his contentions.