EX.HC MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - Head Constable Mohinder Singh has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari seeking the quashment of the order dated 7.10.1992 Annexure P3 and order dated 6.11.1994 Annexure P5 passed by the punishing authority and the appellate authority respectively. The petitioner further prayed that he shall be deemed to have been in service throughout with all consequential relief.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that he joined the police department on 22.6.1973. He had been serving the department to the best of his diligence and honesty. On 22.4.1992 he became ill and proceeded for casual leave vide DDR No. 31 dated 22.4.1992. He was supposed to return on duty on 28.4.1992. But due to illness he sent telegram to the department for the extension of leave on 28.4.1992 and the telegram was received in the office of respondent No. 4 on 29.4.1992. He remained under treatment from 28.4.1992 to 17.6.1992 as he was advised rest. On becoming fit for duty he returned on 18.6.1992. But he was declared absent for a period of 50 days, 20 hours and 40 minutes and this period of absence was beyond his control. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the order Annexure P3 vide which he was dismissed from service is unsustainable in the eyes of law because the punishing authority while passing the impugned order did not take regard of the length of his service and his right to claim pension.

(3.) Notice of the petition was given to the respondents, who filed the written reply and denied the allegations made in the petition. According to the respondents, the act of absence of the petitioner was the gravest act and in these circumstances the competent authority was justified to award any punishment to the petitioner including the punishment of dismissal. The respondents have also taken the stand that a regular inquiry was instituted and after the accusation (conclusion ?) of the inquiry the petitioner was found absent and the charge against him also stood proved. It is also the stand of the respondents that the department did not receive any intimation about the alleged extension of leave as averred by the petitioner. Rather report No. 52 was entered in the Roznamcha about the absence of duty of the petitioner.