IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P.(T) No. : 4632 of 2008. Decided on: 05.03.2010. _________________________________________________________ Subhash Chand. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Rakesh Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge(Oral): The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for willful absence from duties w.e.f. 3rd January, 1996 to 16th January, 1996 and 7th February, 1996 to 15th February, 1996. The inquiry was entrusted to Shri Mohinder Singh, the then District Inspector of Police Bilaspur. He served the petitioner with a charge-sheet. He was permitted to file reply. He was also permitted to furnish list of D.Ws., if any. The stand of the petitioner was that he has suffered an attack of depression. The Inquiry Officer furnished the report to the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority issued show- cause notice to the petitioner why he should not be dismissed from service. The stand of the petitioner again to the show-cause notice was that he suffered attack of depression. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner on 18.07.1996. He preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Mandi. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 19.10.1996. Petitioner preferred a revision before the Director General of Police. The revision was rejected by the Director General of Police on 4.4.1997. Mr. Rakesh Dorga, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the imposition of penalty upon the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. He then argued that the respondents have failed to take into consideration the ailment which the petitioner was suffering from, i.e., ‘depression’. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revising Authority. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. Petitioner was engaged as Constable on 9th January, 1976. He was serving a disciplined force. The record reveals that he was in habit of remaining absent without any permission. He was censured on 28.11.1987. His one year approved service was forfeited for remaining absent on 15.9.1988. His two years’ service was forfeited again when he remained absent for 24 days. He was punished for 15 days drill punishment for willful absence. His five years approved service was again forfeited on 16.12.1992. He was censured on 27.11.1993, 8.3.1994, 8.9.1994 and 2.1.1996 for remaining absent from duties. His two years service was again forfeited on 1.7.1996. He has been again charge-sheeted for willful absence from duty. The Inquiry Officer was appointed. He has given full opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. I have gone through the contents of the inquiry report, i.e. Annexure A-3. The inquiry report is reasoned. Petitioner has been served with a show-cause notice by the Disciplinary Authority and his reply was that he has suffered an attack of depression. He has not placed any tangible evidence on record during the course of inquiry that he was suffering from depression. It was necessary for him either to cite witnesses or bring documents on record to establish that he was suffering from depression. It was in these circumstances that penalty of dismissal was imposed upon the petitioner. The Court is of the considered view that the penalty was imposed upon the petitioner taking into consideration his over all record, as discussed hereinabove. It was expected from him to discharge his duties diligently. The Appellate Authority and Director General of Police have passed reasoned orders. Mr. Rakesh Dogra, learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the petitioner be got examined from a Medical Board. This prayer cannot be accepted. Petitioner was habitual absentee. He has not improved his behaviour at all. He was serving as Guard at a very prestigious site, i.e. ‘Bhakra Dam’. The security of the Dam cannot be compromised. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge March 5, 2010. (bhupender)