CWP No.8666 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.8666 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.04.2010 **** Karamjit Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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. R.S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Addl. AG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was recruited as a Constable in the Punjab Police on 4th December, 1989. He proceeded on casual leave for 5 days on 31st August, 1992 but did not turn up thereafter and remained absent from duty for a period of 180 days, 22 hours 40 minutes (say 181 days). He was placed under suspension w.e.f. 02.04.1993 followed by a departmental enquiry in which he was held guilty of the charges. (2). The petitioner was served a show cause notice dated 15.10.1993 (Annexure P1) and after considering his reply thereto, the Disciplinary CWP No.8666 of 2009.doc - 2 – Authority dismissed him from service vide order dated 28.12.1993 (Annexure P2). The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police which was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 28.04.1994 (Annexure P3) followed by dismissal of his second appeal by the Inspector General of Police, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt. vide order dated 06.07.1994 (Annexure P4). (3). Challenging the above-stated orders, this writ petition has been filed in the year 2009. The petitioner claims that due to financial constraints, he could not approach this Court within some reasonable period. (4). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned orders. (5). As may be noticed, the petitioner had not even three years’ service to his credit when he absented himself from duty for a long span. Even before that, his work and conduct was highly unsatisfactory and it appears that besides repeated warnings, several other punishments were imposed on him. There can be no place for an indisciplined and incorrigible person like the petitioner in Police Force where the incumbents are expected to maintain discipline, dedication and devotion to duties. CWP No.8666 of 2009.doc - 3 – (6). No case to interfere with the impugned orders by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, is made out. (7). Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 05.04.2010 vishal shonkar