SHANTI SWAROOP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed against dismissal order dated 8.4.2005 (P-6), passed by the Commandant 4th Battalion, Haryana Armed Police, Madhuban-respondent No. 4, dismissing the petitioner from service, who has been working as Police Constable; order dated 5.12.2005, passed by the Inspector General of Police. Haryana Armed Police, Madhuban respondent No. 3 (P-8) dismissing the appeal; and order dated 15.5.2006, passed by the Director General of Police. Haryana PanchkuIa-respondent No. 2 (P-10). dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner, who was working as Constable in Haryana Armed Police, was subjected to a regular departmental inquiry on the allegation that he remained absent from duty on different occasion from 18.6.2004 to 23.6.2004, 18.8.2004 to 16.9.2004 20.9.2004 to 23.9.2004, 24.9.2004 to 18.11.2004, 20.11.2004 to 27.11.2004, 29.11.2004 to 19.12 2004, 21.12.2004 to 27.12.2004 i.e. for a total period of 124 days 3 hours and 55 minutes, without obtaining any leave or prior permission from the competent authority. An inquiry was field and based upon its report dated 14.3.2005, the appointing authority issued a show cause notice dated 15.3.2005 to the petitioner, as to why the punishment of dismissal from service be not imposed upon him. His reply to the show cause notice, dated 4.4.2005 was duly considered and thereafter the proposed punishment was imposed. The petitioner went in departmental appeal, which too was dismissed by respondent No. 3, vide order dated 5.12.2005 (P-8). Thereafter, he filed a revision petition before respondent No. 2, which was also dismissed vide his order dated 15.5.2006 (P-10).

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the instant petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. The appointing and punishing authority-respondent No. 4 has committed gravest act of misconduct by remaining absent from duty repeatedly, which proves his incorrigibility. The impugned dismissal order shows that the punishing authority was conscious of the length of service rendered by the petitioner when it mentions that the petitioner has joined in the year 1992 as Constable. His past record of the petitioner highlight that he is a habitual absentee and accordingly the view taken by the appointing authority cannot be considered as harsh or disproportionate. It is well settled that unless any illegality or such an irregularity is shown, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and accepted by the punishing authority, the quantum of punishment awarded by the punishing authority, cannot be tinkered with.