C.W.P.No.12626 of 1997 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.12626 of 1997 Date of Decision:- 21.01.2010 Gurdeep Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. Union of India and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.K.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Mahesh Dheer, Advocate, for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition is for quashing the order of dismissal dated 12.11.1991 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 and orders 9.1.1996 (Annexure P-2) and 9.6.1997 (Annexure P-4) dismissing the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner in pursuance to the punishment imposed upon him under Section 10 (m) of the Central Reserved Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Counsel for the petitioner primarily contends that Section 9 of the Act deals with more heinous offences whereas Section 10 deals with less heinous offences. On conclusion of the trial, the petitioner has been found guilty of the charges and has been punished under Section 10(m) of the Act which is for a less heinous offence. He contends that the absence from duty of the petitioner is for 56 days only. The mitigating fact, he C.W.P.No.12626 of 1997 -2- submits, is that the petitioner had of his own come present at the Unit. He, therefore, contends that since the petitioner has been sentenced only under Section 10(m) of the Act which relates to less heinous offence, the punishment of dismissal from service is not called for. His further contention is that once the period for which the petitioner had remained absent stood regularized, the charge for which he has been dismissed from service, cannot be sustained. In support of his contention, counsel relies upon a judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Manoj Singh vs.Union of India, 2003 (2) S.C.T. 782. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Gulam Mohd. Bhat, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 4289 where the punishment of removal from service awarded to a member of the Force having been found guilty of over-staying leave beyond sanctioned period without permission or sanction and proceeded against under Section 10(c) of the Act, has been upheld. He contends that the present case is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gulam Mohd. Bhat's case (supra). His contention is that present is a case in which the offence is much more serious than the case which was before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the present case, it is not an isolated case of over-stay of leave or illegal absence from duty without any leave or sanction by the petitioner but on earlier three occasions also, he had remained absent. In this regard, counsel refers to para-3 of the written statement wherein details of such over-stay of leave/illegal absence from duty have been given. He has absconded from duty for 56 days and thereafter he had surrendered and that too when the warrant of arrest was C.W.P.No.12626 of 1997 -3- issued against him. He, on this basis, contends that the order of dismissal passed by the Competent Authority and thereafter the dismissal of appeal and revision vide orders Annexures P-2 and P-4 are in accordance with law and therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. It is true that Section 9 of the Act deals with more heinous offences whereas Section 10 deals with less heinous offences. It is also correct that the petitioner has been sentenced for a less heinous offence under Section 10(m) of the Act. Section 10(m) of the Act reads as follows:- “(m) absents himself without leave, or without sufficient cause overstays leave granted to him; or” In the present case, as far as the order of punishment is concerned, Section 12 of the Act would be relevant which reads as follows:- “12. Place of imprisonment and liability to dismissal on imprisonment.- (1) Every person sentenced under this Act to imprisonment may be dismissed from the Force, and shall further be liable to forfeiture of pay, allowance and any other moneys due to him as well as of any medals and decorations received by him. (2) Every such person shall, if he is so dismissed, be imprisoned in the prescribed prison, but if he is not also dismissed from the Force, he may, if the Court or the Commandant so directs, be confined in the quarter-guard or such other place as the Court or the Commandant may consider suitable.” C.W.P.No.12626 of 1997 -4- A perusal of Clause (1) of the above Section spells out that every person who is sentenced under the Act for imprisonment can be dismissed from the Force. The discretion, however, has been granted to the Competent Authority to exercise the same. In the present case, the said discretion has been exercised by the Competent Authority which has ordered dismissal of the petitioner from service. Central Reserved Police Force is a disciplined force and, therefore, the conduct of the petitioner, which according to the findings recorded against him, is that he absconded from duty on 3.9.1991 from Unit Headquarter Lines at about 10 hours without any information, permission or sanction for leave from the Competent Authority. He continued to remain illegally absent and it is only before execution of warrant of arrest issued against him for his apprehension on 20.9.1991 which was sent to SP, Hoshiarpur, Punjab that he himself surrendered at Unit Headquarters on 28.10.1991 at 1500 hours after remaining absent for 56 days. The conduct of the petitioner who belongs to a disciplined force and his absence from duty which led to his conviction and imprisonment under Section 10(m) of the Act, amounts to total disregard to the discipline which is expected of a member of the Force. The order of dismissal passed by the Competent Authority against the petitioner being in accordance with Section 12 of the Act, does not call for any interference by this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd.Gulam Bhat's case (supra) also has come to a conclusion that no interference in the order of the Competent Authority, if made under the Statute and in accordance with law, is called for. The ratio of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court covers the case against the petitioner. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that with the C.W.P.No.12626 of 1997 -5- regularization of the period of petitioner's absence from duty, the charge itself would stand extinguished, cannot be accepted as the period of his absence had been regularized merely to put the record straight. It does not amount to exoneration of the offences which the petitioner has committed. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in Manoj Singh's case (supra), in the light of what has been held by me above, would not be of any help to the petitioner. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. January 21, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE