CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13397 OF 1995 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 10 ,2010 Constable Jaibir Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R. K. Malik, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. In the year 1993, the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed from service after holding enquiry. The allegations against the petitioner were that while deputed to undergo Commando Course at Police Lines, Jind on 2.9.1992, the petitioner got admitted in General Hospital for treatment, but had gone missing from the hospital, which was noticed when a surprise check was carried out. SI Puran Chand had visited the hospital on 13.9.1992 to check the petitioner when he was found absent from his bed. A report in regard CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13397 OF 1995 :{ 2 }: to the absence was accordingly made on 16.9.1992. This was followed by enquiry. A summary of allegations was served on the petitioner. List of P.Ws and documents relied upon was also forwarded to the former address of the petitioner on 9.10.1992 through a special messenger. The petitioner was asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 12.10.1992. The petitioner acknowledged the receipt of summary of allegations on 10.10.1992, but again did not turn up during the enquiry. Another communication was sent to his home address on 12.10.1992 through SHO, Police Station Sadar, Hisar for him to appear on 14.10.1992 to face the departmental enquiry. The petitioner still did not turn up. The Enquiry Officer had then submitted a report after holding ex-parte proceedings. The petitioner did not join either the proceedings and also did not appear for remainder of the proceedings despite reminders. After having satisfied himself on the basis of enquiry report and the evidence contained therein, the allegations/charges levelled against the petitioner were held proved. The respondents thereafter served a show cause notice alongwith a copy of the enquiry finding at the home address of the petitioner through Constable Naresh Kumar. This was against a receipt dated 12.12.1992 requiring the petitioner to respond within 15 days of the receipt of notice. The penalty proposed was dismissal from service. The petitioner still did not submit any response to the show cause notice. Yet the department made an another attempt to serve a show cause notice through messenger. Naresh Kumar again was sent to the house of the petitioner and he handed over the show cause notice to the father of the petitioner against receipt on CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13397 OF 1995 :{ 3 }: 11.2.1993. This notice was also for calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty of dismissal be not imposed on him. He was given 15 days time to file reply. The petitioner did not submit any reply even thereafter. The Superintendent of Police, Sirsa then found this act on the part of the petitioner to be gravest act of misconduct and petitioner being incorrigible and unfit for police service. He accordingly imposed a punishment of dismissal from service on 27.3.1999. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before Deputy Inspector General of Police. The case set up by the petitioner is that he had joined the course but thereafter was admitted in the hospital from where he was discharged on 16.10.1992. The petitioner would rely upon outdoor ticket in this regard. He would accordingly dispute his absence as reported by SI Puran Chand. Besides pleading that if he had been absent how could his outdoor ticket showing his presence in the hospital from 8.9.1992 to 16.10.1992 was issued. The petitioner, thus, had pleaded in his appeal that no proper enquiry was held and that he was also not given proper opportunity to defend himself. Since the petitioner claims to be in the hospital upto 16.10.1992, he accordingly could not have appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 14.10.1002. The petitioner also pleaded that he was not afforded opportunity of hearing while passing the order of dismissal. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range rejected his appeal being devoid of merit as the petitioner had deliberately remained absent during the enquiry and he was termed as habitual absentee for which the punishment of dismissal was also CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13397 OF 1995 :{ 4 }: found adequate. The petitioner thereafter filed a second appeal before Director General of Police primarily on the same grounds as were pleaded in his earlier appeal. Treating this to be a revision, the same was rejected. The Director General of Police also noticed that departmental enquiry was conducted according to the rules and procedure. It is noticed that ex-parte proceedings had to be held as the petitioner could not join the departmental enquiry despite repeated messages. The Director General accordingly found this case to be a case of willful absence and accordingly rejected the appeal. Mr.Malik appearing for the petitioner would plead that petitioner has been unfairly treated and inability on his part to attend the departmental proceedings being admitted in hospital has not been properly appreciated. On the face of it, this would sound a bit attractive argument, but deeper analysis of the entire position would take the sting out of the same. Though, the petitioner could not prove anything or allege any malafide to urge that he was wrongly shown absent in a report given by SI Puran Chand on 15.9.1992, yet he has placed heavy reliance on the bed head ticket. Undoubtedly, the petitioner is shown admitted from 8.9.1992 to 16.10.1992, but there is much more which the petitioner would have to explain. Even the admitting bench had noticed that the bed head ticket of the petitioner was not traceable in the hospital and the State counsel had then produced a register showing that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital for the above referred period. Intriguingly, it was found that the cause of admission was on account of injury to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13397 OF 1995 :{ 5 }: knee whereas the discharge ticket produced by the petitioner indicated that the injury was to spine. The admitting bench then had directed that this discharge ticket be kept in a sealed cover and attached with the file. Even the Medical Officer at Jind had appeared before the court on the date the writ petition was admitted. Mr.Sunil Nehra appearing for the State, thus, is justified in pointing out that the petitioner cannot take advantage of his admission and there is much more than what meets the eye. File of the Enquiry proceedings was summoned and perused by me in detail. If the petitioner was in hospital upto 16.10.1992, what prohibited him to appear before the Enquiry Officer or subsequently before the authorities to explain his admission in the hospital? It is really not made out. Most of the communications initiating enquiry against the petitioner were received personally by him as can be seen from the enquiry file. The letter dated 7.10.1992 initiating enquiry is endorsed to have been personally received by the petitioner. Even the copy of the list of reliance was received personally by the petitioner. A notice issued on 9.10.1992 requiring the petitioner to appear on 12.10.1992 was received by the petitioner on 10.12.1992 under his signatures. This communication was addressed to him at his residential address and not at the hospital address. Even if the stand of the petitioner is accepted that he was in the hospital upto 16.10.1992, then he could be expected to report for duty either on 16.10.1992 or 17.10.1992. The enquiry proceedings had continued thereafter. The petitioner was served various notices and he could have very well appeared before the authorities to point out that he had been in hospital and not absent from duty. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13397 OF 1995 :{ 6 }: The facts as disclosed from the enquiry file are that the charge sheet dated 17.10.1992 was received by the petitioner, notice to appear dated 9.10.1992 was also received by the petitioner, witnesses were examined on 16.10.1992 and 31.10.1992. The notices were sent to the petitioners on 2.11.1999 under registered cover asking him to appear on 6.11.1992. The enquiry report was submitted on 13.11.1992. When the petitioner did not appear, show cause notice was sent to the petitioner on 3.12.1992. This was also received by the petitioner himself. He still did not chose to appear. Another show cause notice dated 10.2.1993 was received by the father of the petitioner. The petitioner chose to remain absent even thereafter and he was, thus, dismissed from service on 27.3.1993. The petitioner has, thus, no justification to offer for his absence at least from 16.10.1992 onwards. The punishing authority found the conduct of the petitioner to be a gravest misconduct. The reliance on the case of Dhan Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2009(1) RSJ 62 would also not rescue the cause of the petitioner. In this case also, cumulative effect of misconduct for absence of 22 days and 100 days in two separate occasions was considered enough to make an police officer incorrigible and unfit for police service. It was only considering his length of service of 11 years and 9 months which was required to be considered that this court had interfered by directing the disciplinary authority to reconsider the question of punishment. The petitioner had rendered just about 4 years service when he committed this misconduct and the consideration, which weighed the court in Dhan Singh's case (supra) on the basis of Rule CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13397 OF 1995 :{ 7 }: 16.2 (1) would not strictly apply to the facts of the present case. Even otherwise, it is noticed that the punishing authority had viewed the entire facts very carefully and had examined the misconduct of the petitioner while holding that the same was gravest act of misconduct. The petitioner was also found incorrigible and unfit for police service. The punishing authority accordingly viewed that nothing less than dismissal would meet the ends of justice and this punishment was so imposed. It is, thus, seen that the punishing authority as well as the appellate authority had kept the relevant parameters in view while imposing penalty and no cause is made out calling for interference in the impugned order at this belated stage. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. December 10,2010 (RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE