Roshan Lal v. State of Haryana & Ors.

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. Deepak Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, who is a Constable in the Haryana Police, has filed this petition to impugn his order of dismissal from service on the ground that the punishment awarded for the act of absence on his part would not be justified on the ground that this was not the gravest act of misconduct for which he could have been so dealt with and punished. The petitioner had joined the service in Haryana Police Force on 3.10.1989 and claims to have rendered nearly 19 years of service, when he was dismissed. The enquiry proceedings were initiated against him, when the petitioner had remained absent from duty for a period of 116 days in the year 2007. As is a usual defence CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11303 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: in such like cases, the petitioner attributes his absence to his serious illness. The Enquiry Officer, however, held the proceedings, prepared the charge sheet and submitted enquiry report on 22.2.2008. As per the petitioner, without considering his medical condition and the evidence available on record, the finding was given against him, leading to his dismissal on 15.4.2008. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was rejected on 25.6.2008. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the same, which was dismissed on 7.2.2009. His mercy plea was also rejected on

3.8.2009. He accordingly has filed the present writ petition. The primary submission made in this case is that the act of absence can not be construed as a gravest misconduct under the provisions of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules to impose the punishment of dismissal. Plea is that punishment of dismissal can only be imposed for gravest misconduct. Further plea is that while imposing this punishment, no regard was given to his long service of 19 years. In support, the petitioner has placed very heavy reliance on a view expressed by Division Bench of this Court in Dhan Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2008 (3) SCT 816. No doubt, in this case, this Court has viewed that the punishment of dismissal on a delinquent official can be imposed for a gravest act of misconduct or even the cumulative effect of continued misconduct and in both cases incorrigibility and unfitness for police service has to be proved but the view that absence alone would not constitute a gravest act of misconduct is not clearly emerging from the ratio of law laid down in this case. The absence in the case of Dhan Singh (supra) was of 22 days and 100 days and the punishing CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11303 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: authorities had not expressed this misconduct to be as a gravest misconduct. Reference can be made to various judgments passed by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2005 (3) SCT 512, State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Mohinder Singh, 2005(12) S.C.C. 182, State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 736, Maan Singh Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1800, Jagdev Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2002 (1) SCT 496, Ex.Constable Satnam Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1996 (4) SCT 130 (P&H), Amin Chand, Ex.Cook 3/25 Vs. The State of Haryana and others, 2007 (5) SLR 296, Satish Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2001 (4) SCT 237 and Pirthi Pal Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2000 (2) SCT 68, where it has been held that even a single act of absence may amount to gravest misconduct. In the present case, the petitioner had not only remained absent for a long period but has nothing much to show to his credit, so far as his previous conduct is concerned. The petitioner had not only remained absent on more than one occasion, for which the enquiry was held but had been punished for absence on various occasions earlier as well. The petitioner had absented during Commando training in the year 1994, when his two annual increments were stopped. In 1996, he remained absent for 25 days, when he had proceeded on 7 days casual leave. For this he was awarded stoppage of five annual increments on permanent basis. In the year 1999, stoppage of four increments was imposed on him for CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11303 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: remaining absent. In the year 2000, he was imposed the punishment of 10 days drill for remaining absent. Another punishment of stoppage of three increments was imposed for remaining absent in the year 2001. The details of his absence are also recorded in the impugned order, which are reproduced here as under:- “.....the delinquent remained absent from 4.6.94 to 5.6.94,

1.12.94 to 15.2.95, 31.1.96 to 12.2.96, 19.2.96 to 20.2.96,

26.2.96, 16.8.96 to 17.8.96, 4.2.97 to 8.3.97, 19.11.97 to

3.12.97, 13.2.98 to 14.2.98, 5.12.97 to 24.12.97, 26.9.99 to 1.10.99, 10.9.99 to 14.9.99, 11.8.2000 to 15.8.2000,

6.11.2000 to 8.11.2000, 14.11.2000 to 18.11.2000,

15.7.2001 to 16.7.2001, 10.3.2003 to 15.3.2003,

15.7.2003 to 24.7.03, 14.8.03 to 27.9.03, 16.3.07 to

20.3.07, 27.3.07 to 2.4.07, 27.12.06 to 28.12.06, 8.2.07 to

20.2.07 and 5.4.07 to 17.5.07.” It would, thus, clearly emerge that the petitioner is incorrigible and unfit for duty in a disciplined Force like Police. Rather, he was given a long rope to continue in the Police service despite having committed series of misconduct by remaining absent, as noted above. In this background, no case or cause for interference in the punishment imposed or in the proceedings in exercise of writ jurisdiction will be made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. July 01, 2010 khurmi ( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE