RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31st Aug., 1992, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, by which the petitioner was awarded the punishment of dismissal from service.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the State of Haryana on 1st Aug., 1985. He was served with a charge-sheet (Annexure P-1) for his alleged absence from duty for four months 21 days 16 hours and 20 minutes (from 23.3.1989 to 14.8.1989). The allegations levelled against the petitioner were enquired into by the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer held him guilty of the charges. The appointing authority agreed with the findings given by the Inquiry Officer and vide order, dated 31st Aug., 1992, awarded the punishment of dismissal from service. The appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner were also rejected. Against the order of punishment of dismissal from service and the orders rejecting the appeal and the revision, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the penalty awarded to the petitioner was disproportionate as such a penalty could be awarded only for gravest acts of misconduct defined under Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). He further submitted that under Rule 16.2 absence from duty is not a grave act of misconduct and as such the punishment of dismissal from service could not be awarded to the petitioner. He also submitted that a lenient view should be taken in the matter and the petitioner may be ordered to be reinstated in service without back wages. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Malkiat Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1996(2) SCT 758(SC) : JT 1996(2) SC 649.