CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6102 of 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: August 04, 2009 Ram Dhari .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, a dismissed Constable, has filed this writ petition to impugn the order of his dismissal. The petitioner was enrolled as Constable on 11.11.1991. He claims to have worked with due diligence. On 21.5.2008, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice with the allegation that he was directed to report for duty at Gurgaon but had remained absent and, thus, had shown indiscipline and carelessness. The petitioner was charge sheeted. Accordingly CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6102 of 2009 :{ 2 }: an Enquiry Officer was detailed to conduct a departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer ultimately submitted his report on 21.5.2008, finding the petitioner guilty of the charge preferred against him. Accordingly, he was issued show cause notice for dismissal from service. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply, pleading that he was sick and had received treatment. He also submitted a proof in this regard. Considering the pleas raised by the petitioner and the enquiry report, the Superintendent of Police, Panchkula, dismissed the petitioner from service on 20.6.2008. The petitioner has remained unsuccessful in his appeal as well as revision and has, thus, filed the present writ petition. The final enquiry report is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. Perusal of enquiry report would show that witnesses were examined not only to prove the absence of the petitioner but also to record evidence about the other misconducts committed by the petitioner. The petitioner was given proper opportunity to lead his defence and he has examined three witnesses in support of his case. It is held that the petitioner had remained absent for 203 days from 15.8.2007 to 5.3.2008 and accordingly the charge levelled against him is statedly proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner would first contend that the charge alleged against the petitioner was different than what has been finally held proved. The counsel then says that previous record of the petitioner has been taken into consideration, which is not proper. Plea also is that no consideration was given to the service rendered by the petitioner while passing the order of dismissal and this would be in violation of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6102 of 2009 :{ 3 }: Police Rules (for short “the Rules”) and a mandatory requirement. There is no substance in any of the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner. In the charge alleged against the petitioner, it is clearly disclosed that he was transferred from Panchkula to Gurgaon, but he did not report for duty at Gurgaon Division. He, thus, was charged for being absent with effect from 15.8.2007 till he reported. The previous conduct of the petitioner may have weighed with the authorities at the time of passing the punishment but was not taken into consideration for establishing the charge of absence as levelled. Similarly, the submission made by the petitioner that his service was not taken into consideration is factually incorrect. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice and in response he had filed his reply. In his reply, the petitioner had made a mention to his 16 years of service. This fact is noticed in the impugned order. The plea of the petitioner that he is the only bread earner of the family is also noticed in the impugned order. Superintendent of Police, Panchkula, while passing the impugned order, duly considered the service rendered by the petitioner. This aspect is noticed in the impugned order. It is observed that the service record of the delinquent is considered and it is found that he does not fulfill the condition of getting pension and other financial benefits. It would, thus, show that the requirement of Rule 16.2 of the Rules was kept in view by Superintendent of Police, Panchkula, while passing the order of dismissal. The impugned order of dismissal, thus, can not be faulted on this ground. Even otherwise, the respondents had considered the various aspects of the evidence and the material on record to pass CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6102 of 2009 :{ 4 }: the impugned order. No case, thus, is made out for interfering in the impugned order on any of the grounds as advanced. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. August 04, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE