IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11981 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.01.2010. Mohan Lal .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner was a Constable in the Punjab Police. He seeks quashing of the order dated 11.6.2002 (Annexure P-2) whereby he has been dismissed from services, as well as the orders dated 24.9.2002 (Annexure P-3), 7.1.2003 (Annexure P-4), 3.2.2004 (Annexure P-5) and 14.3.2009 (Annexure P-6) dismissing his appeal, revisions etc. against the afore-stated dismissal orders. The petitioner has been dismissed from services on the ground that he allegedly absented from duties for 375 days, 2 hours and 20 minutes. C.W.P.No .11981 of 2009 (O&M) 2 The petitioner was enrolled as Constable in the Punjab Police on 28.2.1989. The impugned dismissal order itself reveals and is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that before his dismissal from service vide order dated 11.6.2002, the petitioner was found absent from duties in the years 1989, 1994, 1998, 1999 and 2001 and on each occasion, punishment of forfeiture of his effective service was imposed and as a result thereof, more than 9 years' service of the petitioner has already been forfeited. While assailing the impugned dismissal order, it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Inquiry Officer has erroneously observed as if the petitioner gave in writing that he did not want to produce any witness in his defence or that he would submit his defence in writing within 4 days. Reliance is placed upon the application dated 16.7.2001 (Annexure P-9) which the petitioner is said to have given to the Inquiry Officer and it does not contain any such averment. Having heard ld. counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. A perusal of the application-Annexure P-9 itself reveals that the petitioner has admitted his absence from duty. He claims that he remained absent on account of his “diseases” and “sickness”. Being unable to produce any evidence in support of his plea of suffering with ailment, the petitioner further submitted that he used to get treatment from 'Sadhus' and 'Saints'. It is obvious that the petitioner is harping upon a concocted story as he does not possess any proof or material to prove a justifiable cause to his absence C.W.P.No .11981 of 2009 (O&M) 3 from duties. The petitioner being a member of the disciplinary force, his absence from the duties for such a long period coupled with his past service record, the action taken by the respondents in dismissing him from service, warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. 19-01-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE