RSA No.3933 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3933 of 2009 Date of Decision: 18.10.2011 Ex.Constable Balwinder Singh ....Appellant Vs. The State of Punjab & Anr. .....Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Arun Abrol, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl.A.G., Punjab. --- A.N.Jindal, J. The appellant, a constable, remained absent for 87 days. Upon being charge-sheeted, an inquiry was held against him but despite notice served upon him, he did not appear to face the inquiry. However, after completion of inquiry, a show cause notice was issued to him before awarding punishment. In response thereto he appeared and submitted some medical certificates indicating that his absence was not intentional. The Punishing Authority while not believing the said certificates ordered his dismissal on 12.04.2004 which was challenged by him by way of suit No.39 of 12.2.2005 but RSA No.3933 of 2009 2 the same was dismissed on 12.09.2008. He also lost in appeal before the District Judge, Gurdaspur. This is how this court is seized of the matter in regular second appeal. No fault or defects in the procedure for holding inquiry have been pointed out. Though the appellant has admitted that he remained absent for the period w.e.f. 29.11.2002 to 24.2.2003, but he has failed to explain the cause for such a long absence. The apathy is that he also did not associate in the inquiry proceedings and allowed the inquiry to be completed ex parte, which was followed by a show cause notice for dismissal from service. Record reveals that the Punishing Authority did not accept his plea of illness at that time for sufficient reasons and while holding that the lapse on the part of the official was a grave act of misconduct, imposed the penalty of dismissal. Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, has also submitted that the petitioner does not deserve any concession as he is not fit to be kept in the police department. Earlier also, he remained absent for 45 days and punishment of forfeiture of one year service was imposed upon him for willful absence. Again in another case he was awarded punishment of forfeiture of one year approved service vide order dated 20.2.2003. Yet in another case he was awarded punishment of forfeiture of 2 years service vide order dated 27.11.2003. Again for the willful absence of the appellant for 52 days, 6 hours and 15 minutes, inquiry was initiated against him. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, no RSA No.3933 of 2009 3 concession could be given to the appellant except holding that the judgment passed by both the courts below are well reasoned and do not call for any interference by this court. Since he has been dismissed from service, therefore, he is also not entitled to any pensionary benefits. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this court. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 18.10.2011 Judge rp