CWP No.20820 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.20820 of 2011 Date of decision: 9.11.2011 Ex. C. Surinder Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Satish Jaspal, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). In this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing impugned orders, Annexures P-3 to P-6 respectively, whereby petitioner was dismissed from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner always remained present on duty diligently. According to him, proper opportunity of hearing was not granted to him before dispensing with his services. The impugned orders, thus, deserve to be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It appears that while posted in Brass Band Police Line, Ludhiana, petitioner absented from duty on 11th August, 2001. After remaining absent for 03 months and 08 days, he reported for duty on 17th November, 2001. A departmental inquiry was instituted against him. He was ultimately dismissed from service vide order Annexure P-3 dated 6th September, 2002, passed by Senior Superintendent of CWP No.20820 of 2011 2 Police, Ludhiana. An appeal was preferred by him to DIG, Ludhiana Range. Same was, however, dismissed on 25.2.2003. His revision to Inspector General of Police met the same fate. Petitioner thereafter preferred a mercy petition, wherein he contended that his absence was not willful. It was due to illness of his wife who was under treatment for Jaundice in Primary Health Centre, Ram Dass, Amritsar at the relevant period. Thus, he deserves to be reinstated. The said petition was, however, dismissed by Director General of Police, Punjab on 27th September, 2008 vide order, Annexure P-6. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. It is evident that the order dismissing the petitioner from the services was passed after following due procedure as envisaged by the rules. A departmental inquiry was ordered wherein he was offered opportunity of hearing. However, it appears that he neither submitted reply to show cause notice nor appeared for personal hearing. He was, thus, found guilty of misconduct and as such dismissed from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to urge any ground which would warrant interference of this court in the impugned orders in writ jurisdiction. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 9.11.2011 'rajpal'