Regular Second Appeal No.3165 of 2010 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 29, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No.3165 of 2010 (O & M) Constable Sukhwinder Pal Singh ….Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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? Present: Mr. O.P.S. Tanwar, Advocate, for the appellant. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Civil Misc. No.9306-C of 2010. This application, which has been filed for condoning the delay of 23 days in re-filing the appeal, is supported by an affidavit. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 23 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Regular Second Appeal No.3165 of 2010 (O)&M). The plaintiff-appellant was employed as Constable in Punjab Police on 30.7.1998. He was dismissed by the competent authority vide order dated 2.10.1997 after the appellant had faced inquiry for wilful absence from duty. This order of dismissal has been upheld by Regular Second Appeal No.3165 of 2010 (O & M) all the appellate authorities. During the short tenure of service i.e from 30.7.1998 to 1.10.1997, the plaintiff had remained absent from duty without any sufficient cause for 585 days. The plaintiff-appellant filed the instant suit for declaration to the effect that the order of dismissal of the plaintiff from service passed by the competent authority and upheld by the appellate authorities was illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional, mala fide, null and void and against the principles of natural justice. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 4.8. 2007. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff-appellant went in appeal before the lower appellate. The same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 3.11.2009. Hence this appeal by the plaintiff-appellant. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the records of the case, I do not see any merit in this appeal. The appellant was employed in the disciplined force i.e Punjab Police. When the department had found the appellant incorrigible and, as such, unfit to remain in job, dismissed him from service. He had earlier been treated sympathetically by the department. It may be mentioned here that on an earlier occasion, the appellant had remained absent from duty for 94 days and his five years’ service was forfeited. Thereafter, he remained absent from duty again for 93 days, leading to forfeiture of his two years’ service. Still further, on the third occasion, five years’ service of the appellant was forfeited when he remained absent from duty for 122 days. Again, three years’ service of the appellant was forfeited for remaining absent from duty for 119 days. It also deserves notice that on fourteen occasions orders were passed by the competent authorities whereby various Regular Second Appeal No.3165 of 2010 (O & M) days of absence from duty of the appellant were treated as leave without pay. The act of the appellant in remaining absent from duty for such a long period is, certainly, an act of grave misconduct. The plaintiff had faced inquiry for remaining absent from duty lastly for 119 days, which led to his dismissal. The conduct of the appellant leads to the only conclusion that he was a habitual offender having no interest in his service. The appellant continued to remain absent from duty in spite of the fact that earlier his fifteen years’ service had been forfeited. Under the circumstances, the punishing authority was justified in passing the order of dismissal of the plaintiff-appellant from service. The appellant, while facing inquiry, could not substantiate the reasons of his absence from duty. He had taken the plea before the Inquiry Officer that his absence from duty was due to certain domestic reasons. However, in his plaint, the claim of the appellant was that he was constrained to be absent from duty as he had fallen ill. The appellant did not produce any material on record to show that he had remained ill during the period of his absence from duty. He also did not substantiate his absence on account of domestic problems. The appellant had been provided sufficient opportunity of hearing before the inquiry officer. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, by referring to the authorities reported as Satnam Singh Constable Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2006 (1) Law Herald (P&H) 870 and Harjit Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (2) S.C.T 607, argued that failure of the punishing authority to mention in the order of dismissal that the misconduct attributed to the appellant amounted to the gravest act of misconduct entitled the appellant to the relief prayed for. Regular Second Appeal No.3165 of 2010 (O & M) However, after giving my thoughtful consideration to the argument raised in this behalf, I do not find any merit therein. Merely because the punishing authority did not use the words `gravest acts of misconduct’ in the order of dismissal of the appellant from service is not sufficient to grant the relief claimed by the appellant because, as noticed above, the conduct of the appellant in remaining absent from duty for 585 days in the total service of the appellant of 9 years, 2 months and 15 days is the gravest act of misconduct. Under the circumstances, no fault can be found with the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below whereby they upheld the order of dismissal from service of the appellant. In view of the factual position, discussed above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below which may give rise to any substantial question of law. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. Dated: March 29, 2011. (MOHINDER PAL) ak JUDGE