IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 211 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 25, 2011 Jaspal Singh …Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 28.01.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the appellant is a habitual absentee. The aforesaid fact is patently clear from the show cause notice dated 30.11.2005 (P-4). The aforesaid notice was issued after holding a regular departmental enquiry and placing him under suspension. The allegation against the appellant is that he was absent from duty between 1997 to 2005 on 9 occasions. Absence from duty is a misconduct particularly in disciplined force like police where the appellant was working as Head Constable. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jai Shankar v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1966 SC 492. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly upheld the dismissal of the appellant. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered view that no interference would be warranted in the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge. The judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court. 3. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of appeal on merit, we do not wish to pass any order on the application seeking condonation of 245 days of delay in filing of the instant appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE July 25, 2011 Atul