L.P.A.No. 466 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A.No. 466 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 31.8.2010 Krishan Lal Appellant . VERSUS State of Haryana and others Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR. HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI. Present: Mr.Vikas Malik, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? RITU BAHRI,J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 3.9.2009 passed by Learned Single Judge, whereby the order of dismissal passed by the Department has been upheld. The petitioner was working as Constable in Haryana Police. He remained absent from duty for 353 days and charge sheeted. The reply of the petitioner L.P.A.No. 466 of 2010 2 was considered by the Punishing Authority at the time of passing the impugned order dismissing him from service. As per the record, the petitioner had remained absent from 26.10.2005 to 13.10.2006. No detail of the treatment was mentioned in the certificate issued by Dr.N.C.Mureja. The plea of the petitioner, as such, has been rightly discarded. Learned Single Judge has also observed that the petitioner was absent on various occasions and was punished as per details given in the judgment. The writ petition has been dismissed. Mr. Vikas Malik, learned counsel for the appellant in the Letters Patent Appeal has referred Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules and has argued that the appellant remained absent from duty for 353 days, which does not amount to grave misconduct. He had also filed a representation before respondent No.2 claiming his retrial benefits and for setting aside order of the dismissal, but the representation dated 15.1.2009 was dismissed. The Punishing Authority should have taken into consideration the length of service of the appellant and his right to claim of pension. The appellant was appointed as Constable and he had completed 22 years of service. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that absence from duty does L.P.A.No. 466 of 2010 3 not fall under Rule 16.2(1) where details of gravest Act of misconduct are mentioned. We have gone through the facts of the above case and are of the opinion that under Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, the appellant is in the habit of making himself absent from duty as is evident from the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The cumulative effect of continued misconduct proves incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. That is why the punishing authority taking into account the action of absence from duty from 353 days has come to the conclusion that the appellant is not to be retained in police service. In Amar Singh (Constable) Vs. State of Punjab, 2006(1) RSJ 497, a Division Bench of this Court after examining the case of absence from duty on many occasions and thereafter the order was passed. The order of dismissal was upheld. In this case, the absence from duty was more than 13 days in the first instance; on second occasion six months and thereafter absented for 85 days. In Gurtej Singh Vs.State of Punjab and others, 2005(3) RSJ 240, a Single Bench of this Court after examining the case of absence from duty, the order was L.P.A.No. 466 of 2010 4 passed. In this case, he was marked absent on 28.11.1993 and thereafter he did not report for duty till 6.1.1994. In view of the above facts, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant was guilty of continued misconduct and, therefore, the order of punishing authority has been rightly upheld by the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.M. KUMAR ) (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE JUDGE 31.8.2010 Anoop