CWP No.19162 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19162 of 2009 Date of decision: 21.09.2010 Balwinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Urmil Gupta, Central Government Counsel, for the respondents. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order of petitioner's dismissal from service on the ground of grave misconduct. Petitioner, who was Constable in the India Reserve Battalions, was charged with mis-conduct of absence from duty from 12.2.2006 to 3.3.2006 and 23.3.2006 to 24.4.2006 for a total period of 54 days. The departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, where he was given opportunity to defend himself. On the basis of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, charge of misconduct of absence from duty for 54 days was proved. The appointing authority agreeing with the enquiry officer issued show cause notice to the petitioner proposing penalty of dismissal from service. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, order CWP No.19162 of 2009 -2- was passed dismissing the petitioner from service for the reason that he was absent from duty. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed as also the revision, where the offence of absence from duty was treated to be grave misconduct, petitioner being a member of the disciplined force. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order by placing reliance on the medical certificate (Annexure P-4), which shows that the petitioner was suffering from P.I.V.D. and was under treatment in the hospital as outdoor patient from 23.3.2006 to 24.4.2006. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, is that absence was not willful and was, in fact, for the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The certificate (Annexure P-4) was not relied upon by the petitioner before the enquiry officer or the competent authority. It has been placed for the first time before this Court. Even otherwise, Annexure P-4 gives no justification for the absence of the petitioner from 12.2.2006 to 23.3.2006. No ground is made out to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the departmental authorities. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 21, 2010 R.S.