IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.3524 of 2007 Date of Decision: 16.2.2009 Rajender Singh. ....... Appellant through Shri Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate. Versus The State of Haryana and others. ....... Respondents through Ms.Kirti Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 10.11.2004 and 26.5.2007 passed respectively by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and the District Judge, Sirsa (referred to hereinafter as `the First Appellate Court') whereby the suit and the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant were dismissed. The appellant, who was removed from service on account of his being absent from duty, filed a suit assailing the punishment awarded to him and the procedure adopted before inflicting such punishment. It was the pleaded case of the appellant that no proper R.S.A.No.3524 of 2007 -2- .... procedure as envisaged under Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules (for short, `the Rules') was followed and that his length of service which was approximately 16 years, was not taken into consideration at the time of awarding the punishment and, therefore, removal from service was harsh and deserved to be set aside. The respondents, who contested the suit, high-lighted the conduct of the appellant and pleaded that he had repeatedly been punished for willful absence from duty and that for the last absence which was approximately of two months, he was granted opportunity to substantiate his case, but he failed to do so and, therefore, after following the proper procedure, his services were terminated. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the order dated 176.12.1997, 26.6.1998 and 19.4.1999 are illegal, null and void?OPP 2. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit?OPD 3. whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 5. Relief. The trial Court, as also the First Appellate Court, dismissed the suit and the appeal of the appellant by holding that his conduct warranted such an action and upheld the order of dismissal. R.S.A.No.3524 of 2007 -3- .... Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings of the Courts below and contended that according to Rule 16.2 of the Rules, the length of service had not been taken into account. Reliance was placed on the following judgments to contend that removal from service was extremely harsh penalty and that a lesser penalty should have been imposed:- (i)State of Punjab and others Versus Dharam Singh , (1997) 2 Supreme Court Cases 550; and (ii) State of Punjab Versus Parkash Chand, (1997) 11 Supreme Court Cases 523. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that considering the conduct of the appellant, the dismissal from service was justified. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgments, as also Rule 16.2 of the Rules. The relevant extract of this Rule is reproduced below:- “16.2. Dismissal – (1) Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. In making such an award regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension. Explanation.- For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the following R.S.A.No.3524 of 2007 -4- .... shall,inter alia, be regarded as gravest acts of misconduct in respect of a police officer, facing disciplinary action:- (i)indulging in spying or smuggling activities; (ii) disrupting the means of transport or of communication; (iii) damaging public property; (iv) causing indiscipline amongst fellow policemen; (v) promoting feeling of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language; (vi) going on strike or mass casual leave or resorting to mass abstentions; (vii) spreading disaffection against the Government; and (viii) causing riots and the life.” Indeed, a reading of the afore-quoted provisions makes it clear that that the said rule enumerates the gravest acts of misconduct,but it is not merely these acts which would necessarily warrant dismissal from a disciplined force, which requires a high level of dedication towards duty so as to avoid disaffection amongst other ranks. Exhibit D13 was produced by the respondents to show the past conduct of the appellant. The relevant portion of this document has been extracted in the judgment of the First Appellate Court and according to it, the appellant was punished at a number of occasions for his remaining absent from duty. The employer is not under a bounden duty to retain dead- R.S.A.No.3524 of 2007 -5- .... wood in service. To take into consideration the length of service while awarding punishment, though desirable, has to be seen in the correct perspective of the employer. If an errant and erratic employee, who does not perform his duties effectively, becomes insufferable for the employer with repeated acts of indiscipline and delinquency, then there is no reason why any lenient view be taken. Having regard to the fact that the appellant had been repeatedly absenting himself from duty and also the fact that due process of law was followed before awarding the punishment to him, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgments do not warrant any interference. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law, has arisen for determination in this appeal, which is dismissed. February 16,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge