GURNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was tried for committing the offence punishable under Section 7 of the East Punjab Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). Vide judgment and order dated 13.03.2010, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Budhlada, held the petitioner guilty under Section 7 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, petitioner-Constable-II, Gurnam Singh No. 166/Mansa, was posted in District Police, Mansa. Vide order dated 5.9.2002, he was posted in G.R.P., Bathinda and temporarily posted at GRP Post, Bareta. He joined his duties at G.R.P., Post Bareta on 14.9.2002. On 5.10.2002, he was assigned a patrolling duty from Railway Station Kahangarh to the side of Jakhal. However, as per Rapat No. 7 dated 5.10.2002, the accused absented himself from duties without any permission or prior leave application. Then Inquiry Officer, Harmel Singh, RI, sent letter dated 16.10.2002 to SP (H) Mansa through DSP (H) Mansa to stop the salary of the petitioner. Accordingly, salary of accused-petitioner was stopped vide order dated 30.12.2002. Reports of his absence from duties were called from GRP Post Bareta, Line Officer Mansa and SHO GRP, Bathinda. SHO, GRP Bathinda submitted his report dated 23.11.2002 to the effect that accused-petitioner had been absent from his duties since 5.10.2002 without any permission or leave application. Thereafter, a presence notice dated 23.11.2002 was sent to the petitioner, which was received by him on 17.12.2002. However, even after receipt of the said notice, he did not join the duties. As per report dated 30.12.2002 of MHC Police Line, Mansa, accused-petitioner was continuously absent from duties till 30.12.2002, therefore, intimation in this regard was also sent to the higher authorities for initiating disciplinary action against him. Upon orders of the higher authorities of the Department, FIR in this case was registered against the petitioner.

(3.) After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court Charge under Section 7 of the Act was framed against the accused-petitioner. The petitioner denied the charge and claimed trial.