PREM NATH, EX Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a constable in the Haryana Police, was dismissed from service vide order dated November 12, 1992 passed by the Superintendent of Police. He filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range vide order dated February 26, 1993. His revision petition having been rejected by the Director General of Police, he has filed the present writ petition. The petitioner alleges that the respondents have not taken into consideration his good record of service and that the order of dismissal is violative of the provisions of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules , Volume II. The petitioner, consequently, prays that the orders dated November 12, 1992, February 26, 1993 and June 25, 1996, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P.14, P.16 and P.19 respectively, be quashed. He further prays that the respondents be directed to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.

(2.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Superintendent of Police, Faridabad. It has been inter alia pointed out that the petitioner had been awarded punishments for absence from duty for different intervals of time on different occasions. In particular, it has been pointed out that he had remained absent from September 4, 1990 to December 18, 1990 for 104 days. Thereafter, he had absented himself from April 24, 1991 to July 30, 1991. On these occasions, the petitioner was awarded minor penalties. He did not improve. He again absented himself from October 9, 1991 to March 16, 1992 for a period of 159 days. On this occasion, it was directed that a regular departmental enquiry be held against him. He was charge-sheeted and an enquiry was held. Thereafter, the impugned orders were passed. It has been stated that the punishing authority had "taken into consideration the entire record of the petitioner ... before awarding the punishment of dismissal." It has also been pointed out that punishments of drill, censure, warning, stoppage of five increments with permanent effect and leave without pay for 97 days had been awarded to the petitioner for absence from duty. It is only when the petitioner had not shown any improvement that the impugned orders of dismissal were passed.

(3.) Counsel for the parties have been heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had joined the Police Force in the year 1976 and had earned consistently good reports since then. It is only on account of illness during the year 1991 that the petitioner was unable to attend to his duties. This did not warrant the extreme penalty of dismissal. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner was controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents.