RSA No.2082 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CM No.6285-86-C of 2008 and RSA No.2082 of 2008 Date of Decision: 17.10.2008 Ex.Constable Anurag .....Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.H.S. Gill, DAG, Punjab. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) CM No.6285-C of 2008 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 571 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of accordingly. CM No.6286-C of 2008 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 78 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No.2082 of 2008 The appellant, a dismissed police constable, challenges the judgements and decrees dated 14.6.2005 and 6.3.2006, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur and the Additional District Judge, RSA No.2082 of 2008 2 Gurdaspur, dismissing his suit as also the appeal. The appellant remained absent from duty and as a result was issued a show cause notice that led to the holding of a departmental enquiry. The appellant was found guilty of misconduct and as a result and after following the procedure prescribed under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, he was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service, the appellant filed a suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, which was dismissed. The appeal filed by the appellant also met the same fate. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not granted adequate opportunity to put forth his defence, whether in response to the show cause notice or during the enquiry. It is submitted that as the enquiry stands vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory provisions of the Punjab Police Rules, the trial Court and the first appellate Court committed an error in dismissing the suit and the appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgements and decrees. I find no reason, whether in fact or in law, to differ with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. Apart from the fact that the appellant was charge sheeted for absence from duty without leave, he did not bother to join the enquiry and his plea that he could not appear before the Inquiry Officer, as he was ill was found to be incorrect as no medical certificate was submitted. Even otherwise, counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any defect in the departmental proceedings that would vitiate the enquiry proceedings or the impugned judgements RSA No.2082 of 2008 3 and decrees, which would warrant interference in the exercise of jurisdiction in second appeal. As no question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 17.10.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE