C.W.P. No.1794 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.1794 OF 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 3.5.2011 Gurtej Singh PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri I.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Harish Rathee, Senior D.A.G. Haryana. MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner impugns the order dated 13.4.2007 vide which he has been dismissed from service on account of absence from duty. The allegation against the petitioner was that he remained absent from duty from 5.7.2006 to 5.11.2006 without any leave or intimation to the respondents. An enquiry was held against the petitioner in which the charge against him was established. Thereafter after following the procedure of law and issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner he was ordered to be dismissed from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order passed by the respondents that the petitioner was never served notice and the notice was C.W.P. No.1794 of 2010 -2- served upon the brother of the petitioner which does not amount to a valid service. He further contends that the previous record of the petitioner has been taken into consideration which is impermissible. The respondents have justified the passing of the order by saying that petitioner was a habitual defaulter. On due consideration of the matter, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The petitioner belongs to a disciplined force. Regular enquiry was held against him to establish his guilt. The punishing authority while agreeing with the findings and the report of the enquiry officer and after evaluating the previous conduct which was required to be done in order to establish the incorrigibility of the petitioner and as per the requirement of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, passed the order. Besides, the record also reveals that show cause notice was served upon the petitioner on his home address and several messages were sent and one such show cause notice was received by the petitioner himself. He failed to respond to the notice or attempt of the respondents to involve him in the decision making process. Acceptance of the notice by the petitioner invalidates his objection that the notice was served upon the brother of the petitioner and thus, the argument that he was not aware of the proceedings, cannot be accepted. No other point has been raised. Consequently, the writ petition is held to be without any merit and is dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) May 3, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO