BIJENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed to quash the orders Annexures P-6 and P-11 passed respectively by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak and the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak.

(2.) A brief reference to the facts would enable us to determine whether the impugned orders suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was enrolled in Haryana Police on 3.12.1988 and he was posted as Constable after completion of training. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him on 8.11.1991 for his alleged absence from duty since 6.11.1991. It appears that the petitioner did not take part in the enquiry and, therefore, ex parte proceedings were held against him. The enquiry officer submitted his report with the finding that the petitioner was guilty of the allegations levelled against him. The Superintendent of Police, Rohtak issued show cause notice, dated 19.5.1992 and called upon the petitioners to explain why he not dismissed from service. The notice was accompanied by a report of the Deputy Inspector of Police who had held an enquiry into the allegation of absence from duty against the petitioner. The petitioner contested the show cause notice by filing reply dated 8.6.1992. After considering the reply filed by the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak passed the impugned order Annexure P-6 dated 11.6.92 and dismissed the former from service on the ground of habitual absenteeism. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak. The petitioner challenged order of punishment and the appellate order by filing CWP No. 13962 of 1993. A Division Bench of this Court accepted his writ petition on 3.10.1994 and quashed the appellate order with a direction to the Appellate Authority to pass fresh order within three months. Thereafter the Deputy Inspector General of Police rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide order Annexure P-11 dated 12.5.1995. The petitioner has challenged the order of punishment as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority on the ground of violation of provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution of India, the Punjab Police Rules and the principles of natural Justice.

(3.) The respondents have contested the writ petition by stating that the petitioner is a habitual absentee from duty. In preliminary objection and paragraph 4 of the reply to the writ petition, the respondents have set out the details of the periods of absence of the petitioner between 22.7.1989 and 8.6.1992 and the have stated that after a due enquiry the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The respondents have further stated that the enquiry was held against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Police Rules and the Punishing Authority passed the impugned order after careful consideration of the entire record of the petitioner.