C.W.P No. 18784 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 18784 of 2008 Date of decision : February 25, 2009 Ex. Constable Subhash Chander ...... Petitioner (s) v. State of Haryana and others ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yashdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) The petitioner was dismissed on account of absence from duty. Not only did he remain absent from duty he did not even attend the inquiry proceedings. The punishing authority found as follows :- “ In view of the above, it is amply clear that the defaulter is not responding to any communication addressed to him and is still absenting himself without any rhyme and reason. He has absented himself for 22 times in the past. Thus, it is crystal clear that he is a habitual absentee and incorrigible type. He has not responded to any notice which were sent to him at his C.W.P No. 18784 of 2008 ::2:: home address through special messengers. Under the foregoing circumstances, the undersigned is fully convinced that nothing short of what has been proposed in the show cause notice would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the defaulter is dismissed from service with immediate effect. A copy of this order be supplied to the defaulter and order booked accordingly.” The petitioner filed an appeal but despite having been repeatedly called for personal hearing, he failed to turn up for the same. Counsel for the petitioner states that the component of rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 relating to the consideration of the claim of the petitioner for pension has not been adverted to or considered either in the punishment order or in the appellate and the revisional orders. He further states that the petitioner is not claiming that he should be reinstated but that this mandatory provision of rule 16.2 would have been kept in mind, while deciding the case for punishment to be awarded to the petitioner. In the circumstances, I feel it to be in the interest of justice if the revisional authority would consider this aspect of the matter and pass a fresh speaking order. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 26.3.2008 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the revisional authority, who shall decide the same, in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( AJAY TEWARI ) February 25, 2009. JUDGE `kk'