IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12284 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 15, 2010 Vikramjit Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 14.12.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Commandant, 75th Battalion, Punjab Armed Police, Jalandhar Cantt., as also Order dated 8.7.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Administration, Punjab Armed Police, Jalandhar Cantt. 2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is a victim of circumstances. The CWP No.12284 of 2010 [2] petitioner got involved in a case under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The quantity of narcotic substance, allegedly, in possession of the petitioner was inconsequential. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been acquitted. 3. Learned counsel further states that appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed as being time barred. The order Annexure P-2 is not tenable in law. 4. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The petitioner was serving as a Constable in Department of Police, Punjab and was deployed on security duty at Chandigarh. From the paperbook, it transpires that the petitioner was deployed on security duty at the residence of a retired Judge of this Court. 6. Information was received by the police authorities in Chandigarh that the petitioner indulges in selling poppy husk at the back side of parking of Punjab Civil Secretariat which is brought from Punjab. Accordingly, a naka was laid near Kansal turn on the back side of Secretariat at about 2.15 pm. One scooter came, being driven by a Sikh gentleman. From the CWP No.12284 of 2010 [3] scooter, one polythene bag of green colour containing poppy husk was recovered. On questioning, it was found that the said person was the petitioner. Accordingly, FIR No.35 dated 8.3.2006 was registered with Police Station, Sector 3, Chandigarh, for alleged recovery of 1.400 kilograms of poppy husk from the petitioner. 7. Chargesheet was served on the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner remained absent/ on unauthorised leave from 8.3.2006 onwards; and that petitioner was found in possession of 1.400 kilograms of poppy husk on account of which FIR mentioned above had been registered. Services of the petitioner were placed under suspension. 8. A departmental enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer sent notices to the petitioner for joining duty; and the enquiry proceedings. Notices were sent at the permanent address of the petitioner, however, the petitioner did not join either duty or the enquiry proceedings. In such circumstances, the enquiry officer, on 9.8.2006 ordered the proceedings to be conducted exparte. The enquiry officer concluded that the charges stood proved against the petitioner. CWP No.12284 of 2010 [4] 9. Concurring with the enquiry report, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Commandant on 31.10.2006 alongwith copy of the enquiry report. It was proposed that the petitioner would be dismissed from service on account of his absence w.e.f. 8.3.2006. The petitioner was given sufficient time to show cause. The notice was served on the wife of the petitioner in the presence of Sarpanch of the village. The petitioner did not furnish any reply to the show cause notice. Yet another opportunity was given to the petitioner vide notice dated 20.11.2006. Notice was again received by wife of the petitioner, however, no reply was furnished. Under the circumstances, it was concluded in Annexure P-1 that petitioner did not want to say anything in response to the findings recorded by the enquiry officer or show cause notice issued proposing dismissal of the petitioner from service. 10. It has been concluded in Annexure P-1 that it is a disciplined force and requires the employees to behave accordingly. The petitioner had been absent since 8.3.2006, thereby breaching discipline. It has been found that conduct of the petitioner invited punishment of dismissal from service. Length of service and CWP No.12284 of 2010 [5] eligibility for pension has also been kept in mind for consideration before passing the order. Accordingly, vide Annexure P-1, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. 11. Although order of dismissal was passed on 14.12.2006, the appeal was filed on 10.3.2008. It is the conceded position that the rules provide limitation of one month from passing of an order of penalty/ punishment, however, the petitioner filed the appeal after 1 year and 3 months. No plausible explanation is coming forth for the delay in filing the appeal. 12. I find the conduct of the petitioner to be totally reckless, irresponsible and certainly not conducive for a person who is part of a disciplined force. The documents indicate that the petitioner remained absent w.e.f. 8.3.2006. Despite repeated notices, the petitioner neither joined duty nor enquiry proceedings; or even thereafter when order of dismissal was passed. The petitioner infact after 8.3.2006 has approached the authorities for the first time by way of filing appeal on 10.3.2008. 13. Even after conclusion of enquiry proceedings, show cause notices were given by the disciplinary authority, however, despite receipt of repeated notices, the petitioner neither gave CWP No.12284 of 2010 [6] any reply to the show cause notices nor appeared in person to give his side of the story. In such circumstances, there is no occasion to say on the part of the petitioner that he should be heard on merits in appellate jurisdiction by the authorities, although appeal had been filed after 1 year and 3 months. 14. Although the petitioner has been acquitted in the case under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, however, it is by way of giving benefit of doubt to the petitioner by the Trial Court. 15. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground to show indulgence in writ jurisdiction, either in law or in equity. 16. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) July 15, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?