JAGSIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was inducted into the service of the police department as a constable in 1989. For some period in the year 1991, the petitioner remained absent from duty. In fact, the pleadings of this case, as well as, the charge sheet issued to the petitioner reveal, that the petitioner was absent from duty from 22.8.1991 to 25.9.191 and thereafter again from 25.9.1991 onwards, whereupon report No. 36 was entered in the register on 12.11.1991, depicting absence of the petitioner from service.

(2.) On 4.1.1992 articles of charge were framed against the petitioner solely on the allegation that the petitioner had remained absent from duty for the period referred to above. An Inquiry Officer was appointed, who recorded the statements of witnesses. Although the petitioner was served and he participated in the departmental enquiry in the first instance, he did not cross examine any of the witnesses produced before the Inquiry Officer. Consequent upon the recording of the entire evidence, a charge sheet was framed against the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, whereupon the petitioner was again summoned to appear in the departmental proceedings. The aforesaid charge sheet was also served upon the petitioner, as is apparent from the 'zimini' order passed on 15.3.1993. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of hearing, acknowledges the fact, that the petitioner was served with the charge sheet, yet the petitioner did not appear in the enquiry proceedings after 15.3.1993.

(3.) Although, it was open to the Inquiry Officer to proceed against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry ex parte on account of the absence of the petitioner, yet, before taking the aforesaid decision, the Inquiry Officer sought the approval of the punishing authority to proceed against the petitioner ex parte. This factual position is recorded in the 'zimni' order passed in the departmental enquiry on 14.5.1993.