SUKHVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was recruited as a Constable on June 30, 1990. On June 3, 1994, he was charged for absence from duty for a period of 65 days 14 hours. Having been found guilty by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was given a notice to show cause as to why he be not dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted his reply. Vide order dated December 1, 1994, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.3 with the writ petition, the Senior Superintendent of Police held that the petitioner "cannot become a good employee and he is not fit for the department". He was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, vide order dated July 13, 1995. Hence this petition. The petitioner alleges that the orders are violative of the provisions of the rules and should, thus, be quashed. It has been prayed that the order passed by the disciplinary authority, a copy of which is at Annexure P.3 and that passed by the appellate authority, a copy of which is at Annexure P.4, be quashed.

(2.) The respondents contest the petitioner's claim. It has been inter alia averred that the petitioner has challenged the order dated December 1, 1994 after a gap of about two years. The writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay alone. He should have filed a civil suit. On merits, it has been pointed out that the petitioner had been found absent from duty on 12 occasions and was, thus, not suitable to continue in service. Resultantly, the respondents pray that the writ petition should be dismissed.

(3.) The disciplinary authority viz. the Senior Superintendents of Police, Sangrur had undoubtedly ordered the dismissal of the petitioner vide order dated December 1, 1994. However, it is not disputed that the petitioner had filed an appeal against this order. The appellate authority had decided the case vide its order dated July 13, 1995. In the very nature of things, the order must have been communicated to the petitioner sometime later. He had filed this writ petition within less than a year in May 1996. In this situation, it cannot be said that the writ petition had been filed after the lapse of two years. It was not inordinately delayed. Consequently, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents that the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay, cannot be sustained.