STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS Vs. BHARAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the State of Haryana and another, who were defendants before the Court below in a suit which has been preferred by the respondent-Bharat Singh, who was working as a Constable in the Police department with the appellant No. 2 and filed a suit for declaration challenging the order dated 19.12.1991 passed by appellant No. 2-The Superintendent of Police, Sirsa dismissing him from service after holding a regular departmental enquiry on the allegations that the respondent-plaintiff proceeded on casual leave for 10 days on 14.03.1991 and was required to report back on duty on 25.03.1991 forenoon but did not turn up, on the ground that the said order of dismissal dated 19.12.1991 is illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside on various grounds detailed therein, which was decreed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa on 26.11.1998 leading to the filing of an appeal by the appellants-defendants, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa on 03.03.2001.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Courts below have totally misread documentary evidence on record which clearly substantiate the submission of the appellants-defendants that a proper departmental enquiry was held against the respondent-plaintiff as per the Punjab Police Rules and at each stage, the respondent-plaintiff has been served and on most of the occasions personally at the various stages of the enquiry proceedings which aspect has been totally over-looked by the Courts below while coming to a conclusion that the departmental proceedings, which have been held against the respondent-plaintiff, were not in accordance with the Punjab Police Rules and that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice whereas the position is otherwise that the respondent-plaintiff not only absented for the period in question but thereafter also, remained absent till the order of dismissal was passed. He asserts that the departmental enquiry was also held ex-parte against the respondent as he had chosen not to appear before the Enquiry Officer.

(3.) As regards the observation of the Courts below that the opportunity of personal hearing has not been given to the respondent prior to imposing the order of punishment as provided under the Punjab Police Rules especially Rule 16.24 (a), the same cannot be sustained as the show cause notice along with the copy of the enquiry report has been duly served upon the respondent-plaintiff but he chose not to file any reply to the show cause notice or to appear personally before the punishing authority and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Statutory Rules were not complied with. Counsel states that the observation of the Courts below that the absence from duty is not a gravest act of misconduct cannot be accepted in the light of the various judgments which have been passed by the Courts including this Court in CWP No. 3682 of 2012 titled as Kuldeep Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 28.02.2012, which is based upon the law settled by the Supreme Court on the question of absence from duty in a disciplined force. He, accordingly, prays that the impugned judgments and decree passed by the Courts below cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside leading to the dismissal of the civil suit, which has been preferred by the respondent-plaintiff.