Constable Jaibir Singh v. The State of Haryana & Ors.

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 ramesh (RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE