BISHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was enrolled in the Haryana Police as a constable and was appointed on 29th August, 1977, he was posted at T-point barrier, Ladwa Road, Indri, district Karnal. Shri Balwant Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, was posted at the said barrier as Incharge. On 4th September, 1992 the Petitioner was given santri duty at the barrier aforesaid from 6.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. The Inspector Incharge aforesaid called the roll of the employee posted at the barrier and found the Petitioner to be absent. An entry in this regard was made in the Daily Diary Register,--vide report No. 5 (time 6.00 p.m.). However, on search of the area, the Petitioner was found lying in a drunken state under a mango tree in Mehta Farm, Indri. He was got medically examined at Primary Health Centre, Indri. The Medical Officer reported that he had consumed liquor. Consequently the Petitioner was charge-sheeted on the aforesaid allegations,--vide Annexure P-l. The Petitioner was accused of consuming liquor during duty hours and by absenting from duty, he had committed negligence and indiscipline, which was treated to be highly condemnable being a member of the disciplined force. Annexure P-2 is the summary of charge, signed by the Inquiry Officer. The Petitioner was duly informed about the enquiry being held into the said charges against him, but he is defaulted himself inasmuch as he did not appear before the Inquiry Officer, who made a written request to the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. Superintendent of Police, Karnal on 25th December, 1992 for proceeding ex parte against the delinquent official, i.e. the Petitioner. On 5th January, 1993 the Superintendent of Police granted permission to the Inquiry Officer to proceed ex parte against the Petitioner. However, on 6th January, 1993, the Petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer suo-motu. when the summary of allegations, list of documents, list of prosecution witnesses were supplied to him and he was given time to admit or deny the allegations and was directed to appear on 8th January, 1993. The Petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer on 8th January, 1993 and denied the allegations leveled against him. Thereafter in the enquiry, statements of nine prosecution witnesses were recorded. The Petitioner was given full opportunity of cross-examining them and also to take down the notes of their statements. Thereafter he was asked to lead defence evidence as well as to submit any reply in defence and the case was fixed for 15th April, 1993 for the said purpose. The Petitioner defaulted and did not put in appearance on the said day. Thereafter Parwanas were issued for his presence, which were duly noted by him but he did not appear before the Inquiry Officer for leading any defence evidence or for submitting defence reply. The Inquiry Officer again sought permission from the Superintendent of Police on 26th April, 1993 for proceeding ex parte against the Petitioner, which was granted on 27th April, 1993. The Inquiry Officer submitted his findings on 28th April, 1993, holding the Petitioner guilty of the chrages levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the Superintendent of Police, after perusing the enquiry report as well as the evidence recorded during the enquiry agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and issued a show-cause notice to the Petitioner, which was sent at the address of the Petitioner alongwith a copy of the enquiry report, which was received by the Petitioner on 18th May, 1993. He was given 15 days time to submit reply to the show cause notice, but he did not submit any reply within the stipulated period. However, a reminder was issued to him, giving further time of 5 days to appear before the Disciplinary Authority on 16th June, 1993 at 9.00 a.m. to explain his case. This reminder was received by Smt. Shakuntla, wife of the Petitioner in the presence of Shri Krishan Dahiya Sarpanch of the village. The Petitioner did not appear before the Superintendent of Police, who inferred that the Petitioner had nothing to say in reply to the show cause notice and affirmed the findings of the Inquiry Officer and held the Petitioner guilty of the charges. The Superintendent of Police found that in 16 years of service, the Petitioner earned six bad entries in his character roll. He was awarded the punishment of 15 days PD on four occasions and one punishment of censure besides the punishment of stoppage of five future increments with permanent effect. The Superintendent of Police noticed that all these punishments were awarded to the defaulter for remaining wilfully absent from duty and that the present case is an act of misconduct of the gravest nature on the part of the defaulter and shows his incorrigibility.. The Disciplinary Authority/ Superintendent of Police imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on the Petitioner and consequently dismissed him from service forthwith,--vide, order dated 12th July, 1993, copy Annexure P6.

(2.) An appeal was preferred against the order of the Superintendent of Police, which was filed being time barred, by the Deputy Inspector General of Police,--vide order copy Annexure P7. Thereafter a revision petition was filed before the Director General of Police, who found no merit in the revision petition and rejected the same.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the impugned orders Annexures P6, P7 and P8, being illegal, void and for issuance of a mandamus to the Respondent/authorities to re-instate him in service with continuity of service and all consequential service benefits, including arrears of salary etc.