IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 757 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : OCTOBER 28, 2009 JASPAL SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 1.1.2001 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service from the post of Constable. The other order impugned is dated 27.9.2001 (Annexure P-5), passed by the appellate authority-Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar Civil Writ Petition No. 757 of 2009 2 and order (Annexure P-7), passed by the Inspector General of Police, Zonal-II, Jalandhar, in revisional jurisdiction. Challenge is also to order dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Director General of Police, Punjab, whereby the mercy petition of the petitioner has been dismissed. Essentially, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the show cause notice dated 19.6.2000 (Annexure P-2) was issued to the petitioner for an absence for a little more than 20 days. However, the other periods of absence have also been taken into account while passing the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that for the earlier absence, the petitioner had already been penalized and, therefore, the impugned action of the respondents has resulted in double jeopardy. On the other count, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has served the respondents for approximately 10 years. The punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh. A case of gross misconduct is not made out. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has contended that the conduct of the petitioner has been found to be incorrigible as is reflected from the impugned orders. No ground for interference is made out because at every stage of proceedings, opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. Annexure P-2 is the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner remained absent without leave with Civil Writ Petition No. 757 of 2009 3 effect from 1.8.1999 to 10.8.1999 i.e. for a little more than 8 days. The absence was detected at the time of physical count. Thereafter, the petitioner proceeded on leave on 16.8.1999 for 2 days, however, he did not report back on 19.8.1999. The petitioner was marked absent. The petitioner resumed duty only on 31.8.1999 and, therefore, remained absent without leave for more than 11 days. The total number of days during August, 1999, itself come to a little more than 20 days, wherefor the show cause notice was issued. While issuing the show cause notice, the petitioner has been reminded about the earlier periods of absence, which have been noticed, thus:- 1. Vide Office order No.7457/62 ST dated 5.11.98. One year approved service was ordered to be forfeited in connection with absence from duty for a period of 66 days 21 hours and 30 minutes. 2. Vide Office order No.7409-13/ST dated 5.11.98. One year approved service was ordered to be forfeited in connection with absence from duty for a period of 69 days 1 hour and 45 minutes and that period was ordered to be treated as non duty period. 3. Absence from duty for a period of 14 days viz. from 9.2.99 to 22.2.99. 4. Absence from duty for a period of 16 days viz. from 26.7.95 to 11.8.95. 5. Absence from duty for a period of 22 days viz. from 29.8.95 to 20.8.95. 6. Absence from duty for a period of 36 days viz. from 2.9.96 to 8.10.96. 7. Absence from duty for a period of 42 days viz. from 25.10.96 to 6.12.96. 8. Absence from duty for a period of 12 days viz. from 3.8.97 Civil Writ Petition No. 757 of 2009 4 to 15.8.97. 9. Absence from duty for a period of 2 days viz. from 6.8.98 to 8.9.98. 10.Absence from duty for a period of 6 days viz. from 5.3.99 to 11.3.99.” It has been recorded that the conduct of the petitioner shows that the petitioner was in the habit of remaining absent from duty. The inquiry report established the period of absence without sanctioned leave. Considering the facts and circumstances emanating from the inquiry report, the order (Annexure P-3) has been passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala, on 1.1.2001, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service with effect from that date itself. It has been noticed that the petitioner was habitual of remaining absent and the conduct of the petitioner had been found to be incorrigible. It has further been noticed that the previous record of the petitioner indicates that the petitioner had been treated as absent from duty for a period of 413 days, in connection with the earlier periods of absence. An appeal was filed vide Annexure P-4, whereunder a lenient view was prayed for, as is reflected from para-6(h). The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar, vide impugned order (Annexure P-5) has, again, noticed that the petitioner was a habitual absentee. The order notices that the proceedings had been carried in accordance with the rules and that the charge has been fully proved and, therefore, no interference is called for. Impugned orders (Annexures P-7 and P-9) have been passed on similar lines. Civil Writ Petition No. 757 of 2009 5 Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that due procedure of law has been followed by the respondents in proceeding against the petitioner. The petitioner has been given an opportunity of hearing at every stage of hearing. Writ jurisdiction is sought to be invoked as if it were an appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to make out a ground for judicial review of the orders passed by the respondents on the administrative side. Past conduct of the petitioner has been mentioned only to consider the incorrigible conduct of the petitioner and, therefore, calls for no interference on that count. I have also considered the contents of Annexures R-1/A-1, R- 1/A-2 and R-1/A-3, which are affidavits sworn by the petitioner at various points in time. In affidavit sworn on 30.10.1998 (Annexure R-1/A-1), the petitioner had declared that the petitioner remained absent without leave for more than 69 days and further stated that he shall not remain absent in future. It further declares that in case, the petitioner is absent in future, he would have no objection if the Police Department dismissed his services. In affidavit sworn on 18.5.1999 (Annexure R-1/A-2), the petitioner has admitted his absence without leave for more than 94 days and has, again, undertaken that he shall never be absent in future and, in case, he goes absent, his services be dismissed. Affidavit sworn on 8.6.2000 (Annexure R-1/A-3), again, is to the same effect. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no Civil Writ Petition No. 757 of 2009 6 substance in the arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner. The authorities have only taken into account the earlier conduct of the petitioner to see whether the punishment of dismissal is called for or not. The past conduct of the petitioner was required to be seen. There have been 10 instances when the petitioner remained absent without leave, ranging from 2 days to 69 days at a stretch. The misconduct of the petitioner ranges from the years 1995 to 1999. The incorrigible and habitual conduct of the petitioner is, thus, clearly evident. In this view of the matter, considering the facts and circumstances of the case collectively, I find no ground to interfere. The punishment of dismissal is not harsh, if the facts and circumstances of the case are taken into account. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. October 28, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?