BALJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Anupinder Singh Grewal, This petition is directed against the order dtd. 26/9/2013 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No. 4 (Deputy Commissioner of Police, Faridabad), whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service, order dtd. 25/11/2013 (Annexure P-5), whereby his appeal preferred against the order dtd. 26/9/2013 (Annexure P-3) was dismissed by respondent No. 3 (Commissioner of Police, Faridabad) and order dtd. 24/7/2014 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No. 2 (Director General of Police, Haryana), dismissing his revision petition.

(2.) The petitioner was working as Exempted ASI (EASI) with Haryana Police. He was charge-sheeted on 27/9/2013 for absence from duty from 5/5/2012 to 1/11/2012 and from 3/11/2012 to 28/5/2013, for a total period of 381 days. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 27/3/2013. An enquiry was entrusted to ACP Crime, Faridabad and later to Reserve Inspector, Faridabad. The Enquiry Officer after examining the departmental witnesses and the witnesses in defence, held the charges to be proved against the delinquent official. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters Faridabad, who is the competent authority, after examining the report of the Enquiry Officer issued a show cause notice on 16/8/2013 for punishment of dismissal from service along with a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his written reply on 13/9/2013, a copy whereof is appended as Annexure P-2. The competent authority also accorded personal hearing to the petitioner on 19/9/2013 and thereafter vide order dtd. 26/9/2013 (Annexure P-3) arrived at the conclusion that remaining absent from disciplined force for such a long time amounted to gravest act of misconduct and the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal thereagainst to the Commissioner of Police, Faridabad, who after hearing the petitioner on 21/11/2013, dismissed the appeal vide order dtd. 25/11/2013 (Annexure P-5). The revision petition preferred to the Director General of Police, Haryana was also dismissed vide order dtd. 24/7/2014 (Annexure P-7).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was suffering from Jaundice and Diabetes and hence, he could not report on duty for which he had sent medical certificates. The medical certificates and the medical condition of the petitioner had not been taken into account by the departmental authorities while passing the impugned orders. Learned counsel further contended that in the alternative that even if the petitioner is deemed to have absented from duty that by itself did not warrant the extreme punishment of dismissal from service.