CWP No. 23026 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 23026 of 2010(O&M) Decided on : 10-01-2011 Raju Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.D.S.Nain, Advocate for petitioner MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner while invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has prayed that an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari be issued to quash the impugned order dated 4.2.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent no.2 – the Director General of Police, Haryana and the order dated 6.10.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent no.3 – Inspector General of Police, Ambala range, Ambala as also the order dated 29.7.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent no.4 – Superintendent of Police, Kaithal whereby two increments of the petitioner with permanent effect have been stopped. The reason for inviting such a punishment by the petitioner was that he had absented himself from duty on two occasions and which period of absence cumulatively comes to 95 days. A proper inquiry was held against the petitioner in which he was indicted. The defence of the petitioner was that he had remained ill and was required to undergo treatment as a result thereof he was forced to remain absent from duty from CWP No. 23026 of 2010(O&M) 2 22.11.2007 to 14.1.2008 and reported back after a period of 53 days on 14.1.2008. Thereafter he again absented himself from 29.5.2008 and reported back on duty on 10.7.2008 after a period of 42 days. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner after the completion of inquiry in which it proposed punishment of stoppage of 5 annual increments with permanent effect to be awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner was given 15 days time to submit his reply to the show cause notice which he did and after considering the same, he was awarded a punishment of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect. The Superintendent of Police while passing impugned order dated 29.7.2009 (Annexure P-2) observed that a lenient view of the situation be taken. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 6.10.2009 (Annexure P-3) and was affirmed further in revision vide order dated 4.2.2010 (Annexure P-4). While making a grievance of the aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders suffer from grave infirmity as they failed to take into consideration the plea of the petitioner that he was mentally unfit and was unable to perform his duties for the period he absented himself from duty. Further submitted that punishment awarded is harsh and based on un-substantial allegations. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material on record but I am unable to persuade myself with the contentions raised before this Court. The petitioner has not denied his absence from the duty but he had pleaded that he was unwell and in support of his plea, he had examined Dr.Ishwar Chand Garg as DW1 before the Inquiry Officer. His statement finds elaborate mention at page 41 of the CWP No. 23026 of 2010(O&M) 3 paper book and reveals that the said doctor had certificate from Ayurveda Ratan Ellahabad, Bihar and the entire statement including the cross- examination does not give any hint of the illness which the petitioner was suffering from except for saying that the petitioner was mentally ill and was taking treatment from him which nowhere gives out the name of the illness and neither does it gave the name of the treatment and also does not suggest that the petitioner was incapacitated by such illness so as to prevent him from attending his duty. Apparently, the plea has been cooked up by the petitioner in order to avoid the liability and disciplinary action against him. There is no legal infirmity pointed out in the procedure adopted by the Inquiry Officer or violation of any law which has resulted in the action against the petitioner. There is thus hardly any reason to interfere with the impugned orders, moreso, when the petitioner belongs to a disciplined force nd is expected to abide by the rules and procedures and not deviate from them by absenting himself from duty without any plausible explanation. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. January 10, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge