C.W.P. No.1069 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.1069 of 2011(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 20.1.2011 Krishan Kumar PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri D.S.Bali, Senior Advocate with Shri Salil Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner makes a grouse of the order dated 2.12.2005 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra dismissing him from service, as also the consequent order passed on 20.6.2006 and order dated 29.11.2006 (Annexures P-7 and P-9 respectively) whereby the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal were also rejected. The charge against the petitioner was that he had remained absent from duty for a period of 14 days which absence was not satisfactorily explained. While being C.W.P. No.1069 of 2011 -2- deputed on a particular assignment on 18.7.2005, he failed to report back and joined duties after 14 days 1 hour and 15 minutes on 1.8.2005. This led to a departmental enquiry against him, in which the allegations against the petitioner were fully substantiated and consequent thereupon, notice was issued to him regarding the proposed punishment and after considering his reply, the order dated 2.12.2005 was passed in the first instance and the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner against the said order were also rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is extremely severe and that the period of 14 days of absence, even if it is assumed that the same was unexplained, was disproportionate and that the punishing authority, as also the appellate authority and the revisional authority did not take into consideration the service which the petitioner has already rendered. He has thus, prayed for interference of this Court by invoking the jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the petition. The allegation against the petitioner that he remained absent for 14 days without any satisfactory explanation, was substantiated in the regular departmental enquiry. Before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner did not submit any reply despite show cause notice having been served upon and after various attempts were made by the officer urging the petitioner to respond to the notice. In the impugned order Annexure P-7, the Appellate Authority specifically noticed the conduct of the petitioner over a period of time which is also reflected in the said order and is extracted here below :- (1) Awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect on 14.6.1995. (2) For willful absence from duty dealt with departmentally C.W.P. No.1069 of 2011 -3- and awarded punishment of stoppage of three future increments with permanent effect on 22.5.1997. (3) For willful absence from duty on various occasions dealt with departmentally and awarded the punishment of stoppage of two future increments with permanent effect on 6.6.1997. (4) For willful absence from duty awarded punishments of stoppage of two future increments with temporary effect on 19.7.99. (4) For non-compliance of orders of seniors dealt with departmentally and was dismissed from Govt. service on 25.7.2001. On appeal punishment of dismissal was reduced to that of stoppage of four future increments with permanent effect on 19.3.2002. (5) For willful absence from duty, he was dealt with departmentally and dismissed on 1.5.2002. Appeal against the punishment of dismissal was rejected on 2.1.2003, but on revision petition punishment of dismissal was reduced to stoppage of five future increments with permanent effect by DGP/Haryana vide order dated 18.9.2003 mentioning that this relief is being given as last opportunity.” It is, thus, evident that the petitioner has been a habitual defaulter and has been absenting himself repeatedly without any justification and had thus, invited punishments for such misconduct. Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 lays that a Member of the Force can be dismissed, if the misconduct is found to be grave or the officer is found to be in corrigible. The said rule reads as under :- “Rule 16.2 for Haryana 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 C.W.P. No.1069 of 2011 -4- shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension. “Explanation.- For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the following shall, inter alia, be regarded as gravest acts of misconduct in respect of a police officer, facing disciplinary action :- (i) indulging in spying or smuggling activities ; (ii) disrupting the means of transport or of communication; (iii) damaging public property ; (iv) causing indiscipline amongst fellow policemen ; (v) promoting feeling of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language ; (vi) going on strike or mass casual leave or resorting to mass abstentions ; (vii) spreading disaffection against the Government ; and (viii) causing riots and the fine. (2) An enrolled police officer sentenced judicially to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month or to any other punishment not less severe, shall, if such sentence is not quashed on appeal or revision, be dismissed. An enrolled public officer sentenced by a criminal court to a punishment of fine or simple imprisonment, or both, or to rigorous imprisonment not exceeding one month, or who, having been proclaimed under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fails to appear within the statutory period of thirty days may be dismissed or otherwise dealt with at the discretion of the officer empowered to appoint him. Final departmental orders in such cases shall be postponed until the appeal or revision proceedings have been decided, or until the period allowed for filing an appeal has lapsed without appellate or revisionary proceedings having been instituted. Departmental punishments under this rule shall be awarded in accordance with the powers conferred by rule 16.1. (3) When a police officer is convicted judicially and dismissed, or dismissed as a result of a departmental enquiry, in consequence of corrupt practices, the conviction and C.W.P. No.1069 of 2011 -5- dismissal and its cause shall be published in the Police Gazette. In other cases of dismissal when it is desired to ensure that the officer dismissed shall not be re-employed elsewhere, a full descriptive roll, with particulars of the punishments shall be sent for publication in the Police gazette.” The aforesaid incident of repeated misconduct is a reflection on the incorrigibility of the said officer and he has, thus, been found to be fit to suffer a punishment of dismissal. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and I have also found that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment is harsh, does not merit acceptance, for the simple reason that this Court cannot impose its opinion to replace it with the opinion expressed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority, which have gone into the conduct of the petitioner to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner is unfit for being retained in service. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) January 20, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO