IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1064 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 7, 2011 Mohan Lal …Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal by the un-successful writ petitioner under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 19.1.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the appellant is an habitual absentee and being a member of the police force such a misconduct fully justifies his order of dismissal. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from the concluding para of the judgment, which reads thus:- “ Having heard ld. Counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. A perusal of the application- Annexure P-9 itself reveals that the petitioner has admitted his absence from duty. He claims that he L.P.A. No. 1064 of 2010 (O&M) remained absent on account of his “diseases” and “sickness”. Being unable to produce any evidence in support of his plea of suffering with ailment, the petitioner further submitted that he used to get treatment from ‘Sadhus’ and ‘Saints’. It is obvious that the petitioner is harping upon a concocted story as he does not possess any proof or material to prove a justifiable cause to his absence from duties. The petitioner being a member of the disciplinary force, his absence from the duties for such a long period coupled with his past service record, the action taken by the respondents in dismissing him from service, warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Dismissed.” 2. We asked Mr. Walia, learned counsel for the appellant, if the appellant-petitioner is able to show even today his bona fide with regard to his absence from duty then we would consider the material like acute illness completely preventing him from attending the duty. He was not able to show anything and in turn sought to argue that the information received under the Right to Information Act, 2005, did not show that he had given up his defence or did not want to produce the defence witnesses. The aforesaid stand of the appellant is wholly unsustainable because the Inquiry Officer in his report has concluded that the appellant was summoned and charge sheet was served upon him. The charged official did not agree to the charges and sought an opportunity to explain the same. As per 2 L.P.A. No. 1064 of 2010 (O&M) rules he was given time of 48 hours. The charged official did not submit any list of witnesses to produce his defence within the stipulated period nor he brought any witness in support of his defence. He was granted four days time to produce his written defence, which he submitted in the form of reply. The same was considered and inquiry was conducted. Therefore, we find no substance in the aforesaid argument. The view of the learned Single Judge is plausible because in a disciplined force like police, there is no room for remaining absent unauthorisedly. In the present case there have been repeated instances of absence from duty by the petitioner-appellant. There is, thus, no ground to admit the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) February 7, 2011 JUDGE PKapoor 3