HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.8846 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.08.2011 **** Baldev Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . 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. PS Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was recruited as a Constable in Punjab Police in the year 1994. He remained absent from duty from 18.3.1999 to 26.6.1999. He was dismissed from service vide an order dated 22.11.1999 pursuant to the disciplinary action taken in this regard. The petitioner’s appeal and revision petition were also dismissed by the prescribed authorities. The petitioner’s mercy petition too was dismissed by the Director General of Police on 13.5.2002. Thereafter the petitioner submitted another ‘appeal’ to the State Government which was allowed by an Officer in the rank of Additional Secretary, Home Affairs and Law Department vide order dated 28.5.2003, observing as follows:- CWP No.8846 of 2010.doc - 2 – “After the receipt of the mercy appeal filed by the applicant, the same was heard and the medical certificate produced by him were also perused. The applicant remained under the treatment of Dr. Vidya Sagar in institute of Mental Health, Amritsar. The punishment which has been awarded to the applicant is too severe. Thus, having mercy on the applicant, the punishment of dismissal awarded to him is set aside with further order to stop his 2 annual increments with prospective effect.” (2). It is to be pertinently noticed here that the same Officer (Additional Secretary) passed such like orders in about 40 so-called ‘appeals’ of the dismissed employees and ordered their reinstatement by imposing lesser punishments. The matter was taken up by this Court suo motu in CWP No.5845 of 2006 (HC Ramesh v. State of Punjab & Ors.) and it appears that in deference to the orders and observations made therein, the State Government decided to review / re-consider the order(s) of the Additional Secretary. Thereafter the Principal Secretary, Home Department passed the order dated 13.04.2010, holding that :- CWP No.8846 of 2010.doc - 3 – “In view of the order passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition 5845 of 2006 titled as Head Constable Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Punjab, Constable Baldev Singh No.5/416 was heard by the undersigned on 25.2.2010. He could not produce any medical certificate for remaining absent from duty nor did he produce any documentary proof relating to the sanction of leave. Thus, the appeals filed by him have been rightly rejected. Therefore, I reconsidering the order passed by the Govt. on 8.6.2004, uphold the order No.19984- 99/Steno dated 22.11.1999 passed by the Commandant 5th Battalion ARB Amritsar dismissing constable Baldev Singh No.5/416 from service.” (3). The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. (4). The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit dated 29.7.2010 and in para 2 thereof have disclosed that the petitioner was a habitual absentee and was punished not once but on 47 occasions in various ‘absent cases’ and his total absence period from duty was more than 420 days. The details of the absence period of the petitioner ranging CWP No.8846 of 2010.doc - 4 – from the year 1994 (i.e. the year when he was recruited) till 1999 are also disclosed. (5). The fact that the petitioner was an incorrigible police official stands further proved by the fact that even after his re-instatement, he was found absent from duty as mentioned in para 2 of the reply/affidavit. (6). The respondents have also placed on record the letter dated 29.07.2010 from the Director, Institute of Mental Health, (Govt. Mental Hospital), Amritsar categorically informing that there is no record with that hospital to certify that the petitioner ever remained hospitalized due to his alleged mental ailment. The very basis of the petitioner’s explanation for remaining absent from duty has thus been found false. (7). For the reasons afore-stated, no interference with the impugned order is called for by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. (8). Dismissed. 30.08.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge