IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2537 of 2008. Decided on: 6.3.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Chet Ram … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). The Superintendent of Police has passed the following order on 9.6.1992: “Head Constable Chet Ram No.2, who is posted in the office of S.P. (Accounts Branch), proceeded on 30 days earned leave vide D.D. No. 28 dated 21.11.1991 and due back on 21.11.91. On 21.11.91, he marked absent from above leave vide D.D. No. 21. A telegramme from this Head Constable for extension of his leave received in this office on 25.11.1991 which was rejected and information regarding rejection of his leave had been sent to this Head Constable vide this office W.T. No. 19241 dated 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 28.11.1991 through S.P. Shimla. In this connection report received from S.P. Shimla that this Head Constable not found at his home and his brother has been informed accordingly by the local police of PP Sunni. Besides this, a W.T. No. 20202-03 dated 9.12.1991 and No. 1091/W dated 13.1.1992 have been sent to the SHO, P.S. Dhalli to inform the above Head Constable to resume his duty, but no reply was received. This Head Constable reported back vide D.D. No. 12 dated 27.3.1992 after absenting himself for 127 days w.e.f. 22.11.1991 to 27.3.1992. This Head Constable replied in written reg. his absence that due to illness in the month of Nov. he was unable and getting the treatment and after recouping his health he joined his duty on dated 27.3.1992. This Head Constable had presented a medical fitness certificate from Medical Officer of Govt. Ayurvedic Dispensary Sunni, Distt. Shimla from dated 22.11.1992 to 24.3.1993 to this office. This Head Constable was absented himself without prior permission and prior sanction of leave. A notice was sent to this Head Constable according to leave rule 25.1 from this office vide order No. 10873 dated 8.5.1992 and the reply of the same was not found satisfactory. The leave time and absent time of this Head Constable was adjusted vide leave rule 25.1 to the following manners: 3 1. Thirty days sanctioned leave from dated 23.10.91 to 21.11.91 was adjusted in the 30 days earned leave. 2. Absence period w.e.f. 22.11.91 to 27.3.92 i.e. 127 days treated as leave without pay, for which no pay will be paid to him and will be treated/counted in H.P.L. which is not counted for punishment. ORDER BE PUBLISHED IN O.B.” The petitioner preferred an appeal against the above order before the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Southern Range), Solan. The same was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 23.2.1993. The petitioner has produced medical certificate duly issued by the Medical Officer, Government Ayurvedic Dispensary, Sunni, District Shimla from 22.11.1991 to 27.3.1992. This aspect has not been taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority. The Deputy Inspector General of Police has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was attending a marriage party at Sunni. There is nothing on record to suggest how this finding has been recorded by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. The petitioner had also preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Inspector 4 General of Police before the Director General of Police. It stood rejected on 16.4.1994. The order dated 16.4.1994 is not a speaking order. The medical certificate furnished by the petitioner issued by the Medical officer has not been taken into consideration by the Director General of Police. In fact, he has reiterated the reasoning of the Deputy Inspector General of Police. He ought to have applied his independent mind. In these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders Annexures-A2/A and A3/A are quashed and set aside. The Director General of Police is directed to decide the appeal afresh by hearing the petitioner. He is further directed to pass a speaking order. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. March 6, 2009. (cr)