CWP No. 15042 of 1995. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. 15042 of 1995. [O&M] Date of Decision: 10th February, 2010. Ex. Constable Mukand Singh Petitioner through Mr. K.S.Sidhu, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner is an Ex-Constable of Punjab Police. He was recruited on 26.6.1967. The petitioner was charge-sheeted with the allegations that he willfully absented from duty on 25.11.1990 while he was posted in Police Lines at Ferozepur and an entry to this effect was made vide DDR No. 227, Police Lines, Ferozepur. The Inquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of absent from duty, pursuant whereto a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner on 15.10.1992. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice, taking a plea that he was bitten by a mad dog and was getting treatment from the Government Hospital, Bathinda where he was subjected to regular injections. The petitioner further averred that as the treatment was started late, he became mentally imbalanced due to which he could not inform the authorities on time. [2]. Though the plea taken by the petitioner was not found CWP No. 15042 of 1995. ::-2-:: false by the Senior Superintendent of Police, he turned down the same on the ground that the petitioner ought to have informed the Department immediately and should have proceeded for treatment after getting the leave sanctioned. On this premise, the dismissal order dated 26.2.1993 was passed. The petitioner went in appeal as well as revision before the higher authorities but the same were also turned down. [3]. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. [4]. The solitary contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that while imposing the punishment of dismissal from service, the SSP has not complied with the mandatory provisions contained in Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as the pensionable service of the petitioner has been completely over-looked. [5]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned orders. [6]. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioner before he was dismissed from service had rendered more than 26 years of service and in the event of retirement, would have been entitled to all the retiral benefits including pension. The impugned dismissal order does not suggest that the petitioner was an incorrigible or willful absentee police official. The Authorities have also not highlighted the circumstances as to why punishment, other than dismissal, would not have met the ends of justice. It is the case of the petitioner that he has led evidence before the Inquiry Officer to prove that he was bitten by a mad dog and he remained under treatment in a Government Hospital. If it were true, the Disciplinary Authority ought to have been considerate while determining the nature of punishment CWP No. 15042 of 1995. ::-3-:: to be imposed on the delinquent employee. [7]. There is, however, no force in the petitioner's plea that since he was prevented by the circumstances beyond his control from joining his duties, no misconduct can be said to have been proved. The Disciplinary Authority appears to be right in holding that the petitioner's action in not informing the Competent Authority or not applying for leave while he is a member of the disciplined force, also tantamounts to a misconduct. [8]. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, while I am not inclined to set aside the dismissal order, I am of the considered view that the petitioner's plea on the quantum of punishment deserves to be reconsidered by the Director General of Police, Punjab. The revision order [Annexure P-3] passed by the Inspector General of Police, Punjab is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the Director General of Police, Punjab to re-ascertain as to whether or not the factual plea taken by the petitioner as noticed above, is correct and if so, should it not have some bearing on the quantum of punishment to be imposed on him. Suffice it to observe that the absence from duty for a compelling reason is different from willful absence from duty. While the latter may tantamount to grossest misconduct, the former deserves to be treated on a different pedestal. The Director General of Police, Punjab shall, therefore, take an appropriate decision in the matter, in accordance with law as early as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. It is, however, made clear that in case the Revisional Authority decides to reduce the quantum of punishment, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any arrears of pay. [9]. Dasti. February 10, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE