EX. CONSTABLE BALWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Constable in the Punjab Armed Police. On May 4, 1993, he was deputed to deliver the post. He did not report back on May 5, 1993. An entry regarding his absence was made in the Daily Diary Register. He reported for duty ultimately on May 15, 1994 after having remained absent for 416 days. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him. In spite of the issue of three notices sent by registered post as well as through special messenger he did not join the enquiry proceedings. Ultimately the disciplinary authority was forced to direct that the proceedings be conducted ex-parte. A show cause notice was sent to the petitioner through a special messenger. He submitted no reply. After considering the record of the proceedings, the disciplinary authority ordered that the petitioner be dismissed from service. A copy of the order dated March 30, 1995, passed by the disciplinary authority has been produced as Annexure P.1 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate authority considered the matter at considerable length. Vide order dated July 19, 1996, copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.4 with the writ petition, the petitioner's appeal was rejected. Undaunted, he filed a revision petition which was rejected by the Additional Director General of Police vide order dated September 11, 1997. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P.6 with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the orders copies of which have been produced an Annexures P.1, P.4 and P.6 with the writ petition, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) Mr. K.S. Dadwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated. According to the counsel, the Commandant had deferred the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner vide order dated November 1, 1995, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.2 with the writ petition. There was, thus, no occasion to conduct ex-parte proceedings or to punish him. Secondly, it has been contended by the learned counsel that the order of dismissal is bad in law as it has not been published in the Police Gazette in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16.2(3).

(3.) So far as the first contention is concerned, a perusal of the present record shows that the petitioner after having remained absent for 416 days, had reported for duty on July 15, 1994. The proceedings were initiated. While the proceedings were pending, he had sought ten days casual leave on October 24, 1994. He was due to report for duty on November 4, 1994. He had absented himself again. For this lapse, second departmental proceedings were initiated against him. However, these proceedings had nothing to do with the proceedings which had been initiated on account of absence from duty from May 5, 1993 to July 15, 1994. It also deserves mention that vide order dated March 30, 1995, the petitioner had already been ordered to be dismissed from service. Holding the proceedings in pursuance of the second misconduct in abeyance did not have any effect whatsoever on the order which had already been passed in an independent proceeding. The order of dismissal having been passed, the disciplinary authority was entitled to take the view that it is not necessary to continue proceedings on account of the second lapse on the part of the petitioner. Consequently, the mere fact that the authority had directed that the proceedings be kept pending, did not in any way effect the order of dismissal which had been passed in March 1995.