CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12254 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 15 ,2011 Swaranjit Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R. K. Samyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. A police constable has impugned the order dismissing him from service on account of absence and so also the order whereby his appeal and revision have been rejected. While serving in Police Line, District Hisar, a regular enquiry was directed against the petitioner for remaining willfully absent from duty. The Enquiry Officer held him guilty. Agreeing with the finding, Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad, dismissed him from service on 4.6.2008. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by Inspector General on 29.8.2008. The petitioner filed CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12254 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: revision petition before Director General of Police, Haryana, which was rejected on 29.1.2009. Complaining that the petitioner has been condemned unheard by the Enquiry Officer, where he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The petitioner also pleads that the act of absence would not fall in the category of gravest act of misconduct to invite dismissal. None of the grounds advanced by the petitioner to impugn his dismissal and the subsequent order would get support from the facts that would appear on record and from the enquiry proceedings. The petitioner was found absent on roll call on 3.9.2006. He reported back after remaining absent for day and a half. He again went absent on 5.9.2006 and reported back nearly after eight days. The petitioner in fact had been detailed for duty as a Judicial Guard but did not report for duty and absented himself. It is in this background that the enquiry was ordered against him and entrusted to Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer served a notice alongwith copies of documents at the home address of the petitioner, requiring him to join departmental enquiry proceedings. This notice was received by the petitioner himself but he did not come to join the proceedings. The Enquiry Officer sent another notice at his home address through a Constable. This notice was again received by the petitioner himself but still he did not come present to join the departmental proceedings. To be fair to the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer sent yet another notice at his home address, which was again received by the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12254 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: petitioner, followed by yet another notice, which was again received by him but still the petitioner did not join the enquiry proceedings. Left with no alternative, the Enquiry Officer held an exparte enquiry after taking due approval from the Superintendent of Police. In an exparte enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer has recorded evidence of as many as five witnesses. There is nothing much, which comes out to the credit of the petitioner. The evidence would show that the petitioner has been habitually absenting himself almost every year starting from 2002 onwards till the present absence. Rather, it is seen that the petitioner was earlier proceeded against for absence and after due enquiry, he was dismissed from service in the year 2005. The department was generous enough to accept his appeal and reinstate him into service by imposing the punishment of stoppage of increments with permanent effect. This also did not deter the petitioner in any manner to desist from absenting himself and ultimately the end result is the impugned order. Thus, the petitioner can neither plead that there was any violation of principle of fair hearing or that the misconduct of the petitioner of absence would not be gravest act of misconduct in the facts and circumstances of the case. The plea that the petitioner had to remain away from duty as he was suffering from illness or that his mother was ill, was duly considered by the Punishing Authority, as the petitioner had responded to the show cause notice. It is rightly observed that the petitioner could very well have sought leave instead of remaining absent. The period of absence for which the present action has been CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12254 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: taken against the petitioner was 244 days. His conduct in remaining absent on numerous occasions during each and every year starting from 2002 would belie his stand that he was sick or that he was attending to his sick mother. The misconduct of the petitioner would certainly fall in the category of a gravest act in facts and circumstances of the case and was rightly so viewed by the Punishing Authority. There is no merit in the pleas raised by the petitioner and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. July 15, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE