IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 7980/2008 Decided on:2.7.2009 Dharam Sukh Negi. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1.No. For the petitioner : Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate vice Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner was recruited as Constable on 15.10.1988. A memorandum was issued to him by the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 28.8.1992. Thereafter a charge-sheet was issued on 11.12.1992. The Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 30.12.1992 proposing the penalty of forfeiture of four years approved service for the purpose of annual increments. He submitted detailed reply to the same on 22.3.1993. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of forfeiture of four years approved service 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 for the purpose of annual increments on 10.5.1993. He preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 14.9.1998. He rejected the same on 20.2.2001. Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate has strenuously argued that the imposition of the penalty and the rejection of his appeal is not in accordance with law. He then contended that his client has not been afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the course of inquiry. He has lastly contended that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority are neither speaking nor self contained. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the orders dated 10.5.1993 and 20.2.2001. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. A memorandum was issued to the petitioner, as noticed above, on 28.8.1992. He has admitted the charges levelled against him as per Annexure R-1. The charge levelled against the petitioner was that he was absent from active duty with effect from 3.8.1992 to 25.8.1992. He has not moved any application for leave. The case of the petitioner is that he had to leave the station due to accident of his mother and he approached the Station House Officer for leave, however, the same was declined by him. In these circumstances it was open to him to approach the higher authorities or to move application in writing either for casual leave or station leave. He has not placed on record any application either for casual or station leave. He has not examined any defence witness. He could cite and examine Station House Officer to whom he alleged to have submitted the application in his defence. 3 The petitioner has also raised the ground in his reply to show cause notice dated 30.12.1992 that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The Disciplinary Authority has taken into consideration this aspect also while punishing him on 10.5.1993. He has refused to tender witness in his defence. The order passed by the Superintendent of Police on 10.3.1993 imposing the penalty upon the petitioner is reasoned and self-contained. The petitioner has filed appeal against this order on 14.9.1998. The same was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 20.2.2001 by a self-contained and speaking order. The petitioner was afforded with reasonable opportunity to defend himself in accordance with law after issuance of memorandum and charge sheet dated 28.8.1992 and 11.12.1992. The inquiry is based on facts. Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate has also argued that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. There is no merit in this submission. The petitioner is habitual absentee as per the record. He has remained absent for 45 days w.e.f. 5.11.1992 to 9.12.1992, 32 days w.e.f. 26.12.1992 to 27.1.1993, 10 days w.e.f. 25.4.1993 to 4.5.1993, 2 days i.e. 5.5.1993 and 6.5.1993, 3 days w.e.f. 24.5.1993 to 26.5.1993, 6 days w.e.f. 27.5.1993 to 1.6.1993, 1 day i.e. 4.6.1993 and 2 days i.e. 10.6.1993 and 11.6.1993. He is serving in a disciplined force. He has to maintain discipline while serving the police force. There is a procedure the manner in which the application is to be forwarded seeking casual/station leave or medical leave. This procedure has not been adopted by the petitioner. He remained absent without any cogent explanation with effect from 3.8.1992 to 25.8.1992. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority is commensurate with the misconduct. 4 Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid reasoning, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. 2.7. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*