CWP No. 17548 of 2009. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. 17548 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 28th January, 2010. Jaspal Singh Petitioner through Mr. Ranjit Sharma, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? SURYA KANT, J. The petitioner, who was a Constable in the Punjab Police, impugns the orders dated 11.1.2006 (Annexure P-5), 1.12.2006 (Annexure P-9) as well as the order dated 8.11.2007 (Annexure P- 11) Vide order dated 11.1.2006, the petitioner was dismissed from service on the basis of the findings in a regular departmental inquiry to the effect that he remained absent from duty for a period of 220 days and 8 hours. Vide the subsequent orders, the departmental appeal and revision petition preferred by the petitioner have been turned down by the Appellate and the Revisional Authorities, respectively. The petitioner was recruited as a Constable in the Punjab Police on 12.4.1988. It is averred that since the militants used to keep surveillance on the petitioner, he absconded from the drill and other formal duties. In the year 2004 he is stated to have met with an CWP No. 17548 of 2009. ::-2-:: accident and remained under treatment w.e.f. 22.10.2004 to 25.5.2005 and it is only after being declared fit that he resumed his duties. He was marked absent, followed by a charge-sheet and then a regular departmental inquiry in which, as noticed earlier, it was proved that the petitioner remained willfully absent from his duty for more than 220 days. As is apparent, the petitioner had about 18 years service to his credit at the time when he was dismissed from service. Yet the disciplinary authority while considering the nature of punishment to be imposed upon the petitioner, opted to award severest punishment of dismissal from service for the reason that earlier also nine years' services of the petitioner stood forfeited on account of his repeated absence from duty. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the petitioner was punished departmentally for remaining willfully absent from duty on several occasions and thus he is a habitual absentee. It is also not in dispute that total length of the petitioner's service, including the forfeited service, does not qualify him for pension. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact that the petitioner was a member of the disciplined force and his absence from duty cannot be taken lightly, no case to interfere with the impugned orders by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, is made out. Dismissed. January 28, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE