CWP No.14396 of 2007. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.14396 of 2007 Date of Decision: 14.2.2008 Sat Narain ............. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others. ..............Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Sh.Ravi Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh.Mahabir Singh Sindhu,DAG Haryana for respondents. ***** JASWANT SINGH,J. Petitioner, an Ex-Constable of Haryana Police, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 12.4.2001 (P-2) passed by Superintendent of Police, Ambala, vide which the petitioner has been dismissed from service for his gravest mis-conduct of being absent from duty for 79 days 3 hours, without any leave or prior permission of the competent authority. Further prayer has been made for quashing the appellate order dated 18.3.2002 (P-3) and the revisional order dated 16.1.2003 (P-5), vide which his appeal and revision petition were dismissed by the competent authorities. The petitioner was enlisted as a Constable in the Haryana Armed Police, Madhuban on 20.6.1979. He was transferred to District Police, Ambala in the year 1982. The petitioner, while posted in Police Lines, Ambala, during the year 1992 was deputed at Naka Gurudwara Manji Sahib, in connection with Lok Sabha Election duty. He did not report for duty and CWP No.14396 of 2007. 2 absented himself w.e.f. 4.9.1999 and reported back on 22.11.1999, after absenting himself for 79 days and 3 hours. Since this constituted an act of gravest mis-conduct on his part, a regular departmental enquiry was initiated against him vide order dated 30.11.1999. After giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 12.8.2000, holding him guilty for his gravest mis- conduct. Thereafter, a show cause notice stating proposed penalty alongwith a copy of the enquiry report was issued to the petitioner. No reply to the show cause notice was, however, submitted by the petitioner. He was also given an opportunity to appear in person, which was not availed of. The appointing authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Ambala- Respondent no.4 passed the punishment order dated 12.4.2001 ( P-2). The appeal and revision filed by the petitioner were also dismissed vide orders dated 18.3.2002 (P3) and 16.1.2003 (P-5) respectively, passed by the competent authorities. Hence the present writ petition. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while passing the impugned punishment order (P-2), dismissing him from service, the competent authority has not taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner had rendered more than 20 years' of unblemished service, which was mandatorily required to be kept in mind while passing the impugned order, under Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules,1934. Relevant extract of Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules,1934, reads as under:- CWP No.14396 of 2007. 3 16.2.Dismissal.-(1) Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. In making such an award regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension. xxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx " In the present case, the petitioner is a member of a disciplined force with a sacrosanct duty of maintaining law and order in our society. Admittedly, he was deputed for Lok Sabha Election duty and he willfully absented himself for 79 days and 3 hours, without any leave or prior permission of the competent authority. No tenable explanation was offered by the petitioner for his misconduct. The Enquiry Officer after giving full and proper opportunity to the petitioner had arrived at a categoric finding that the petitioner had willfully absented himself for the said period. A perusal of the punishment order dated 12.4.2001 (P-2), issued by the punishing/appointing authority reveals that the fact of the petitioner having completed 20 years qualifying service was kept in mind while arriving at the conclusion based on the findings of the enquiry report that the said willful absence of the petitioner amounted to gravest misconduct on his part and thus he did not deserve any sympathy. A perusal of the record indicates that the authorities concerned have followed due process of law, complied with principles of natural justice and there is nothing on record to show any kind of arbitrariness on their part. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that such acts CWP No.14396 of 2007. 4 of willful absence from duty by members of the disciplined force like police etc., constitute gravest misconduct and hence dismissal from service is an appropriate punishment and further it is for the competent authorities to keep in mind the length of service of the offender and his claim for pension as one of the factors, while arriving at a decision to impose the appropriate punishment having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Reference in this regard can be made to State of Punjab and others v. Mohinder Singh, (2005) 12 SCC 182; State of Punjab and others v. Bakhshish Singh, 1997(6) SCC 381; State of Punjab and others v. Sukhwinder Singh, 1999 SCC (L&S) 1234; Union of India and others v. Mohd. Rafique Ali Ahmad, 1999 SCC (L&S) 634. In the facts of the present case, by applying the ratio of the above referred judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities. Hence writ petition is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Jaswant Singh) Judge 14.2.2008 (Jasbir Singh) joshi Judge