IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13585 of 2009 Date of Decision : February 11, 2010. Ex.C.Baldev Singh No.2060/Ldh. .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Saurabh Garg, 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, who was a Constable in the Punjab Police, impugns the orders dated 25.1.2003 (Annexure P-1), 16.4.2003 (Annexure P-2), 4.10.2003 (Annexure P-3), 19.7.2004 (Annexure P-4), as well as the order dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure P-7). Vide order dated 25.1.2003, the petitioner was dismissed from service on the basis of the findings in a regular departmental enquiry to the effect that he remained absent from duty for 40 days, 20 hours and 10 minutes. Vide subsequent orders, the departmental appeal(s) and revision petition preferred by the petitioner have been turned down by the Appellate and the Revisional Authorities, respectively. C.W.P.No .13585 of 2009 (O&M) 2 The petitioner was recruited as a Constable in the Punjab Police on 27.4.1992. He proceeded on 5 days sanctioned casual leave on 20.5.2001 but did not resume duty after expiry of the leave period. He was marked absent followed by a charge-sheet and then a regular departmental enquiry in which, as noticed earlier, it was proved that the petitioner remained willfully absented from duty for more than 40 days. As is apparent, the petitioner had only 10 years service to his credit at the time when he was dismissed from service. The disciplinary authority while considering the nature of punishment to be imposed upon the petitioner, opted to award severest punishment of dismissal from service after observing as follows:- “....Earlier, in the year 1994, due to absent from duty, his three years service has been forfeited and in the year 2001 due to absent from duty, his three years service has been forfeited and due to absent from duty in the year 2001, his 5 years service has been forfeited in the year 2002 and due to absent from duty in the year 2002, his 2 years permanent service has been forfeited. In his previous service, he remained absent from duty with his own consent. From this, it is clear that this employee will not improve and he is unfit to perform duty in the disciplined police department. It had also gone through his length of service and his right of pension. The Constable has joined in the year 1992. During service, he remained absent from duty with his own consent and as a result of the same, at different-different times, his 13 years service has been forfeited on permanent basis. His leave without pay is 172 days, so he has no right to C.W.P.No .13585 of 2009 (O&M) 3 get pension....” During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the petitioner was repeatedly punished departmentally for remaining willfully absent from duty on several occasions and thus hs is habitual absentee. It is also not in dispute that total length of the petitioner's service, including the forfeited service, does not qualify him for pension. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact that the petitioner was a member of the disciplinary force and his absence from duty cannot be taken lightly, no case to interfere with the impugned orders by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, is made out. Dismissed. 11-02-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE