Punjab-Haryana High Court
Perminder Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 29 August, 2023
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill
2023:PHHC:112863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-14431-2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 29.8.2023
Ex. Constable Perminder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. Jaspreet Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.
*****
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
1. The petitioner assails order dated 5.9.2007 (Annexure P-4) passed by Commondant 82nd Battalion, PAP, Chandigarh vide which his services had been terminated.
2. The petitioner had been appointed as a Constable on compassionate grounds on 9.8.1996. A departmental inquiry was initiated against him with an allegation that he absented w.e.f. 24.3.2006. It was also found that the petitioner had been arrested on 25.3.2006 in connection with FIR No. 282 dated 1.8.2005 under Sections 326, 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station Vijay Nagar, Sadar Amritsar. He was released on bail on 1.8.2006 but did not join duties and remained absent till 29.8.2006 and it was thereafter that he presented himself for joining duties. Thus, it is alleged that he had remained absent from 24.3.2006 to 26.3.2006 and even for the period after KAMAL KUMAR 2023.08.29 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-14431-2017 (O&M) 2 2023:PHHC:112863 his release on bail i.e. from 1.8.2006 to 29.8.2006 apart from his custody during the period 25.3.2006 to 31.7.2006 (128 days), having been confined in Central Jail, Amritsar.
3. A copy of the chargesheet alongwith list of witnesses and other documents was served upon the petitioner. Seven witnesses were examined in presence of the petitioner. The petitioner was also afforded opporuntity to produce witness in his defence and he submitted a reply in writing that he did not wish to examine any witness in his defence. The petitioner, however, got his own statement recorded. The Inquiry Officer held that the charges framed against the petitioner were duly established. The petitioner was, thereafter, issued show cause notice dated 21.8.2007 to explain as to why his services may not be terminated. The petitioner was also informed that in case he wished to appear personally to explain his position, he could appear in person. A copy of the enquiry report was also sent alongwith the said show cause notice.
4. The petitioner filed his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice explaining reasons for his absence to be mainly on account of the petitioner having been involved falsely in criminal cases and because of which he had to attend court proceedings frequently and which led to the petitioner remaining upset. The aforesaid explanation was, however, not accepted by the punishing authority and consequently passed an order removing the petitioner from service.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that he had been charge-sheeted mainly on grounds of absence, a part of which admittedly was on account of registration of FIR KAMAL KUMAR 2023.08.29 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-14431-2017 (O&M) 3 2023:PHHC:112863 whereas he already stands acquitted in the said FIR i.e. FIR No. 282 dated 1.8.2005, Police Station Vijay Nagar, Sadar Amritsar.
6. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is alleged to have remained absent w.e.f. 24.3.2006 upto 29.8.2006 which includes his custody period w.e.f. 25.3.2006 to 31.7.2006 (128 days). It has been submitted that the said custody period of 128 days cannot be termed as willful absence, particularly when the petitioner already stands acquitted in the FIR in respect of which he was in jail during the aforesaid period and that in case the aforesaid period of 128 days is excluded, the remaining absence would be barely for one month.
7. It has next been submitted by learned counsel that the punishing authority was swayed mainly on account of involvement of the petitioner in three FIRs i.e. FIR No. 200/03 under Section 392/353 IPC, Police Station Sadar Amritsar; FIR No. 235 dated 4.11.2004 under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, Police Station GRPs, Ambala Cantt. and FIR No. 282 dated 1.8.2005, Police Station Vijay Nagar, Sadar Amritsar and on account of some previous instances of absence of the petitioner whereas the petitioner already stands acquitted in all the three FIRs and thus, the same cannot be taken into account and that the previous conduct can be considered by the punishing authority at the time of imposing punishment only in case the petitioner has been given an advance notice informing him about the same whereas the petitioner had never been given any notice informing the petitioner regarding the intention of the punishing authority to rely upon the said previous instances of absences/conduct. The learned counsel places reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in 1964 AIR (Supreme Court) 506 State of Mysore versus K.Manche Gowda. The learned counsel KAMAL KUMAR 2023.08.29 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-14431-2017 (O&M) 4 2023:PHHC:112863 also pressed into service judgments passed by this Court in 1992(3) S.C.T. 580 - K.B. Tuli versus The Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Limited; 1996(2) RSJ 599 Ex.Constable Tarsem Singh versus State of Punjab and others; and RSA No. 4365-2010 titled as Sawinder Singh versus Punjab State and others. It has, thus, been submitted that principles of natural justice have been totally violated and extraneous material has been taken into consideration while passing order of dismissal of the petitioner in respect of which the petitioner had never been furnished any notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal had been dismissed by the Director General of Police vide order dated 28.2.2013 (Annexure P-5). It has further been submitted that although the petitioner had filed a revision- cum-mercy petition before the Principal Secretary, Home Affairs and Justice, Govt. of Punjab but the same also met with the same fate and was dismissed vide order dated 17.6.2014 (Annexure P-9).
8. Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner is a member of disciplined force who had remained absent from service and that absence for a long period would constitute grave misconduct. It has been submitted that even if the period of 128 days in respect of the detention period of the petitioner on account of the FIR in which he stands acquitted is not taken into account, still the absence of 30 days itself is a grave misconduct which cannot be taken lightly. It has been submitted that in the present case, the punishing authority before imposing punishment of dismissal had duly issued a show cause notice dated 21.8.2007 (served on 25.8.2007) to the petitioner, which was served upon the petitioner alongwith a copy of the inquiry report and since in the show KAMAL KUMAR 2023.08.29 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-14431-2017 (O&M) 5 2023:PHHC:112863 cause notice, it had been mentioned in detail that the punishment of dismissal was being proposed on account of his previous conduct which was delineated in show-cause notice dated 21.8.2007, the petitioner cannot be said to have been prejudiced in any manner.
9. The learned State counsel further submitted that the instant petition also suffers from delay and latches inasmuch as while petitioner's appeal against the order of dismissal/termination was dismissed on 28.2.2013 and even his mercy petition was dismissed on 27.7.2014, the instant petition came to be filed after about 3 years of the dismissal of mercy petition without there being any justifiable explanation to explain the delay. The learned State counsel, thus, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
10. This Court has considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.
11. As far as the period of absence is concerned, the same is not disputed by the learned counsel. The total period of absence of the petitioner was from 24.3.2006 to 29.8.2006 including custody period from 25.3.2006 to 31.7.2006 (128 days). It is also not in dispute that the petitioner stands acquitted in all the three FIRs lodged against him. In any case, the FIRs are not the basis of petitioner's dismissal. The petitioner has laid much stress on his contention that the punishing authority has taken into account extraneous material while imposing the punishment of termination from service.
12. However, this Court finds that the aforesaid contention is not factually substantiated inasmuch as the show cause notice dated 21.8.2007 had been sent to the petitioner, as is also specifically stated in the reply filed by the State wherein it also stated that same was received by petitioner under his signatures on 25.8.2007. This Court, in order to satisfy itself, called for a KAMAL KUMAR 2023.08.29 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-14431-2017 (O&M) 6 2023:PHHC:112863 copy of said show-cause notice dated 21.8.2007 and the same has been taken on record as Annexure C-1. Upon perusal of same, it is found that details of previous conduct has been mentioned in show-cause notice dated 21.8.2007. The translated gist of relevant extract is as follows :-
" I have perused your previous service record. You had been appointed as a Constable on 11.9.1996. Ever since your appointment, there has not even been a single year when you had not repeatedly absented. As per service proforma, you had absented on as many as 123 occasions, orders in respect of which have been duly recorded. You are a habitual absentee on account of which 13 of your annual increments already stand forfieted with cummulative effect. A period of 813 days has been treated as absence without pay and 77 days has been treated as leave of kind due. Departmental proceedings are also pending against you on account of registration of criminal cases."
13. As far as the judgments pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, the same would be distinguisable and would not apply to the facts of the present case. The judgement i.e. K.Manche Gowda's case (supra) pertained to an employee who was holding the post of an Assistant to the Additional Development Commissioner, Planning, Banglaore whereas in the present case the petitioner belongs to a disciplined force i.e. the police. Thus, even if all other previous instances of absences are not taken into account, the absence of the petitioner for 30 days in the present case would itself be sufficient to impose the punishment of dismissal, being member of a disciplined force.
14. This Court in judgment dated 8.9.2015 rendered in 2015(41) RCR(Civil) 907 titled as Swaran Singh versus State of Punjab and another held that even a KAMAL KUMAR 2023.08.29 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-14431-2017 (O&M) 7 2023:PHHC:112863 single day's absence without intimation in case of a member of a disciplined force cannot be ignored.
15. Even, the judgment rendered in K.B.Tuli's case (supra) pertained to a Section Officer in Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation in contrast to the present case where the petitioner is a member of disciplined force where the standard of discipline and requirements are much more stringent.
16. As far as the Division Bench judgment rendered in Ex.Constable Tarsem Singh's case (supra) is concerned, the same was a case where the petitioner had been served a chargesheet for having remained absent for 89 days whereas punishment was imposed upon him holding him guilty of remaining absent for 356 days, though no such chargesheet was ever served upon him. The facts of the case are clearly different and would not be applicable to the present case.
17. As regards, the judgment in Sawinder Singh's case (supra), which has been pressed into service by the learned counsel, this Court finds that the petitioner therein had been terminated from service on the basis of previous record, which was noticed in very general terms, as under :-
"Besides, I have also perused his previous service records which shows that he is a habitual absentee. He is an unreliable police official and unfit for department. He deserves no leniency for the gross misconduct on his part. The defaulter deserves the proposed punishment in the Show Cause Notice. Therefore, I dismiss Const. Sawinder Singh No.1380/ASR from the Police Department w.e.f. 18.10.2004 A.N. His aforesaid period is treated as N.D.P."KAMAL KUMAR 2023.08.29 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CWP-14431-2017 (O&M) 8 2023:PHHC:112863
18. On the other hand, in the present case the impugned order would show that a detailed reference has been made to the previous record and thereafter the opinion has been formed by the punishing authority that the petitioner is unlikely to improve himself. The relevant extract from the order reads herein-under :-
".................He has also written that at present, three false cases have been registered against him which are still pending. He has mentioned that he is upset due to registration of these cases. But I am not agree with the reply given by him in writing because I have gone through his previous record. The constable joined his services on 11.09.1996. It would not be the year since his joining when has not been remained absent. He remained absent for 127 times. His order book has been checked and found that he has become habitual of remaining absent due to which, his absent period come to 847 days has already been approved as "No work no pay" and 77 days absent period has been included in his leave period and his 15 future annual increments have already been forfeited. Due to registration of criminal case against him, departmental proceedings are pending against him. Such employee can make problem at any time for the force and cannot improve himself in any manner.
Neither such employee can perform his duties in the police department in a discipline nor has any merit to become good police officer................"
19. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to Annexure R-1 and Annexure R-2 annexed with the reply filed by the State pertaining to the period of absence KAMAL KUMAR 2023.08.29 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-14431-2017 (O&M) 9 2023:PHHC:112863 and the punishment imposed upon the petitioner on several occasions. Annexure R-1 would read as under :-
"PUNISHMENT PROFORMA Rank Name & No. Father's Name DOB DOE Ex. CT Parminder Sh. Balwinder Singh 26.06.1977 11.09.1996 Singh No. 82/235
1. 78/2003 On the result of departmental enquiry his Five year approved service was forfeited and absent period w.e.f. 23.02.02 to 19.03.02 = 25 days treated as NDP vide order No. 208-12/Reader, dated 29.01.03 by the then Commandant, 9 th Battalion, PAP, Amritsar.
2. 78/2003 On the result of departmental enquiry his Five year approved service was forfeited and absent period w.e.f. 01.04.02 to 25.04.02 = 24 days treated as NDP vide order No. 213-17/Reader, dated 29.01.03 by the then Commandant, 9 th Battalion, PAP, Amritsar.
3. 297/2003 On the result of departmental enquiry his One year approved service was forfeited and absent period w.e.f. 05.09.02 to 14.09.02 = 09 days treated as NDP vide order No. 1099-1104/Reader, dated 29.04.03 by the then Commandant, 9th Battalion, PAP, Amritsar.
4. 297/2003 On the result of departmental enquiry his One year approved service was forfeited and absent period w.e.f. 16.11.02 to 17.12.02 = 22 days treated as NDP vide order No. 1105-10/Reader, dated 29.04.03 by the then Commandant, 9th Battalion, PAP, Amritsar.
5. 251/2005 His one year approved service was forfeited and absent period w.e.f. 08.06.03 to 18.08.03 = 25 days treated as NDP vide order No. 834-41/Reader, dated 25.04.05 by the then Commandant, 9th Battalion, PAP, Amritsar.
6. 8/98 Absent period w.e.f. 07.09.97 to 18.09.97 = 01, w.e.f. 05.10.97 to 08.10.97 = 04 and 05.11.97 to 05.11.97 = 01 total 06 days treated as NDP and awarded Censure vide order No.941-44/Steno dated 16.01.98 by the then Commandant, 9th Battalion, PAP, Amritsar.
7. 376/98 Absent period w.e.f. 13.12.97 to 16.12.97 = 03 days treated as NDP and awarded Censure vide order No.1532/Steno dated 29.01.98 by the then Commandant, 9th Battalion, PAP, Amritsar.
8. 411/98 Absent period w.e.f. 05.02.98 to 08.02.98 = 03 and 09.02.98 to 11.02.98 = 02 days total 05 days treated as NDP and awarded Censure vide order No.19877-81/Steno dated 22.12.98 by the then Commandant, 9th Battalion, PAP, Amritsar.
9. 768/2003 He was suspended, absent period 01 day treated as NDP and awarded Censure vide order No.2759-65/Steno, dated 09.10.03 by the then Commandant, 9th Battalion, PAP, Amritsar.KAMAL KUMAR 2023.08.29 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CWP-14431-2017 (O&M) 10 2023:PHHC:112863
10. 439/2004 Absent period w.e.f. 08.06.04 to 14.06.04 = 06 days treated as NDP and awarded Censure vide order No.1056-61/Steno dated 17.07.04 by the then Commandant, 9th Battalion, PAP, Amritsar.
11. 385/99 Absent period w.e.f. 12.10.99 to 17.10.99 = 05 days treated as NDP and awarded Warning vide order No.22826-30/Steno dated 15.11.99 by the then Commandant, 9th Battalion, PAP, Amritsar.
12. 640/2005 Absent period w.e.f. 30.07.05 to 08.08.05 = 09 days sanctioned as Earned Leave and awarded Warning vide order No.14478-83/Steno dated 21.09.05 by the then Commandant, 9 th Battalion, PAP, Amritsar.
20. The period of absence, as mentioned in Annexure R-2, is reproduced herein-
under :-
"ABSENT/NON DUTY PERIOR PROFORMA Rank Name & No. Father's Name DOB DOE Ex. CT Parminder Sh. Balwinder Singh 26.06.1977 11.09.1996 Singh No. 82/235 1812/96 Enlisted as Constable on 11.09.1996
1. 36/97 Absent period w.e.f. 18.01.97 to 22.01.97 = 04 days treated as NDP
2. 304/97 Absent period w.e.f. 17.08.97 to 19.08.97 = 03 days treated as NDP
3. 268/97 Absent period w.e.f. 21.07.97 to 23.07.97 = 02 days treated as NDP
4. 113/98 Absent period w.e.f. 01.03.98 to 04.03.98 = 03 days and 18.03.98 to 19.03.98 = 02 days total 06 days treated as NDP
5. 394/98 Absent period w.e.f. 05.07.98 to 17.07.98 = 12 days and 17.07.98 to 24.07.98= 8 total 20 days treated as NDP
6. 43/99 Absent period w.e.f. 18.01.99 to 30.01.99 = 13 days treated as NDP
7. 221/99 Absent period w.e.f. 07.04.99 to 09.04.99 = 02 days, 17.04.99 to 25.04.99 = 08, 26.04.99 to 29.04.99 = 03 days, 04.05.99 to 06.05.99 = 2 days and 27.05.99 to 03.06.99 = 07 days, total = 22 days treated as NDP
8. 246/99 Absent period w.e.f. 17.06.99 to 26.06.99 = 09 days and 03.07.99 to 07.07.99 = 04 days total 13 days treated as NDP
9. 302/99 Absent period w.e.f. 22.08.99 to 23.08.99 = 01 day and 02.09.99 to 08.09.99 = 06 days total = 07 days treated as NDP
10. 302/99 Absent period w.e.f. 06.08.99 to 15.08.99 = 10 days treated as NDP
11. 405/99 Absent period w.e.f. 03.11.99 to 09.11.99 = 06 days treated as NDP KAMAL KUMAR 2023.08.29 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-14431-2017 (O&M) 11 2023:PHHC:112863
12. 428/99 Absent period w.e.f. 17.11.99 to 18.11.99 = 01 day treated as NDP 13 429/99 Absent period w.e.f. 25.11.99 to 27.11.99 = 02 days treated as NDP 14 41/2000 Absent period w.e.f. 03.12.99 to 09.12.99 = 07 days treated as NDP 15 64/2000 Absent period w.e.f. 13.12.99 to 14.12.99 = 02 days treated as NDP 16 96/2000 Absent period w.e.f. 30.12.99 to 01.01.2000 = 02 days treated as NDP 17 224/98 Recruit course passed 18 124/2000 Absent period w.e.f. 26.03.2000 to 04.04.2000 = 10 days treated as NDP 19 124/2000 Absent period w.e.f. 24.01.2000 to 11.02.2000 = 18 days treated as NDP 20 124/2000 Absent period w.e.f. 13.01.2000 to 21.01.2000 = 09 days treated as NDP 21 135/2000 Absent period w.e.f. 08.05.2000 to 12.05.2000 = 04 days treated as NDP 22 135/2000 Absent period w.e.f. 13.05.2000 to 17.05.2000 = 04 days treated as NDP 23 154/2000 Absent period w.e.f. 14.06.2000 to 15.06.2000 = 01 day treated as NDP 24 185/2000 Absent period w.e.f. 03.07.2000 to 03.07.2000 = 01 day treated as NDP 25 202/2000 Absent period w.e.f. 06.08.2000 to 07.08.2000 = 01 day treated as NDP 26 247/2000 Absent period w.e.f. 26.08.2000 to 02.09.2000 = 07 days treated as NDP 27 255/2000 Absent period w.e.f. 29.09.2000 to 30.09.2000 = 02 days treated as NDP 28 257/2000 Absent period w.e.f. 27.09.2000 to 28.09.2000 = 01 day treated as LKD 29 262/2000 Absent period w.e.f. 10.11.2000 to 15.11.2000 = 05 days treated as NDP 30 18/2001 Absent period w.e.f. 27.11.2000 to 28.11.2000 = 01 day treated as NDP 31 18/2001 Absent period w.e.f. 06.12.2000 to 12.12.2000 = 06 days treated as NDP 32 18/2001 Absent period w.e.f. 08.01.01 to 19.01.01 = 12 days treated as NDP 33 60/2001 Absent period w.e.f. 31.01.01 to 09.02.01 = 10 days treated as NDP 34 76/2001 Absent period w.e.f. 07.03.01 to 19.03.01 = 13 days treated as NDP 35 89/2001 Absent period w.e.f. 20.04.01 to 03.05.01 = 14 days treated as NDP 36 101/2001 Absent period w.e.f. 05.05.01 to 21.05.01 = 16 days treated as NDP KAMAL KUMAR 2023.08.29 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-14431-2017 (O&M) 12 2023:PHHC:112863 37 133/2001 Absent period w.e.f. 27.06.01 to 16.07.01 = 20 days treated as NDP 38 174/2001 Absent period w.e.f. 22.07.01 to 03.08.01 = 13 days treated as NDP 39 234/2001 Absent period w.e.f. 24.08.01 to 23.10.01 = 61 days treated as NDP 40 252/2001 Absent period w.e.f. 07.11.01 to 09.11.01 = 02 days treated as NDP 41 252/2001 Absent period w.e.f. 31.1.01 to 03.11.01 = 04 days treated as NDP 42 05/2002 Absent period w.e.f. 16.12.01 to 17.12.01 = 02 days treated as NDP 43 34/2002 Absent period w.e.f. 09.01.01 to 18.01.02 = 10 days treated as NDP 44 34/2002 Absent period w.e.f. 23.01.02 to 28.01.02 = 06 days treated as NDP 45 49/2002 Absent period w.e.f. 28.06.02 to 18.07.02 = 21 days treated as NDP 46 507/2002 Absent period w.e.f. 14.06.02 to 19.06.02 = 06 days treated as NDP 47 557/2002 Absent period w.e.f. 22.06.02 to 25.06.06 = 03 days treated as NDP 48 47/2002 Absent period w.e.f. 02.07.02 to 02.07.02 = 01 day treated as NDP 49 615/2002 Absent period w.e.f. 20.07.02 to 21.07.02 = 01 day treated as NDP 50 615/2002 Absent period w.e.f. 28.07.02 to 29.07.02 = 01 day treated as NDP 51 615/2002 Absent period w.e.f. 02.08.02 to 03.08.02 = 01 day treated as NDP 52 615/2002 Absent period w.e.f. 07.08.02 to 16.08.02 = 10 days treated as NDP 53 663/2002 Absent period w.e.f. 29.08.02 to 03.09.02 = 05 days treated as NDP 54 429/2003 Absent period w.e.f. 03.01.03 to 21.01.03 = 18 days, 23.01.03 to 13.02.03 = 21 and 02.03.03 to 03.03.03 = 02 days Total days 41 treated as NDP 55 429/2003 Absent period w.e.f. 14.05.03 to 15.05.03 = 01 day treated as NDP 56 429/2003 Absent period w.e.f. 05.03.03 to 08.04.03 = 22 days treated as NDP 57 477/2003 Case FIR No. 200 dated 10.06.2003 u/s 393,353,186,34 IPC P.S. Sadar Amritsar was registered in which he was arrested and got suspended 58 681/2003 Absent period w.e.f. 29.08.03 to 30.08.03 = 01 day treated as NDP 59 753/2003 Absent period w.e.f. 07.09.03 to 08.09.03 = 01 days treated as NDP KAMAL KUMAR 2023.08.29 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-14431-2017 (O&M) 13 2023:PHHC:112863 60 744/2003 Absent period w.e.f. 16.09.02 to 21.10.02 = 16 days sanctioned as Earned leave and w.e.f. 02.10.02 to 04.11.02 = 34 days sanctioned as half pay (leave of kind due) 61 744/2003 Absent period w.e.f. 14.03.03 to 18.03.03 = 05 days treated as LKD vide order no. 21011-13/CRC, dated 03.10.03. 62 744/2003 Absent period w.e.f. 09.04.03 to 16.04.03 = 08 days treated as LKD vide order no. 21014-16/CRC, dated 03.10.03. 63 783/2003 Absent period w.e.f. 28.09.03 to 02.10.03 = 03 days treated as NDP 64 926/2003 Absent period w.e.f. 16.11.03 to 17.11.03 = 01 day treated as NDP 65 50/2004 Absent period w.e.f. 03.01.04 to 04.01.04 = 01 day treated as NDP 66 -- Case FIR No. 200 dated 10.06.2003 u/s 393,353,186,34 IPC P.S. Sadar Amritsar registered vide order No. 134-36/CRC, dated 02.01.2004.
67 123/2004 Absent period w.e.f. 02.02.04 to 04.02.04 = 02 days treated as NDP 68 232/2004 Absent period w.e.f. 11.03.04 to 15.03.04 = 04 days treated as NDP 69 384/2004 Absent period w.e.f. 29.05.04 to 03.06.04 = 05 days treated as NDP 70 446/2004 Absent period w.e.f. 07.08.04 to 08.08.04 = 02 days treated as NDP 71 439/2004 Absent period w.e.f. 28.05.04 to 29.05.04 = 01 day treated as NDP 72 632/2004 Absent period w.e.f. 15.09.04 to 16.09.04 = 01 day treated as NDP 73 733/2004 Absent period w.e.f. 25.10.04 to 26.10.04 = 02 days treated as NDP 74 692/2004 Absent period w.e.f. 17.10.04 to 18.10.04 = 01 day treated as NDP 75 216/2005 Absent period w.e.f. 17.03.05 to 19.03.05 = 02 days treated as NDP 76 200/2005 Absent period w.e.f. 13.03.05 to 14.03.05 = 01 days treated as NDP 77 668/2004 Absent period w.e.f. 06.10.04 to 13.10.04 = 07 days treated as NDP 78 331/2005 Absent period w.e.f. 19.04.05 to 23.04.05 = 05 days treated as NDP 79 272/2005 Absent period w.e.f. 30.03.05 to 02.04.05 = 04 days treated as NDP 80 392/2005 His D/E was initiated vide order No.607-13/Reader, dated 29.03.05 81 509/2005 His absent period w.e.f. 22.08.05 to 23.08.05 = 01 day treated as Earned Leave vide order No.16781-83/CRC, dated 31.08.05.
82 667/2005 Absent period w.e.f. 17.09.05 to 25.09.05 = 08 days treated as NDP KAMAL KUMAR 2023.08.29 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-14431-2017 (O&M) 14 2023:PHHC:112863 83 693/2005 Absent period w.e.f. 25.11.05 to 28.11.05 = 03 days treated as NDP 84 793/2005 Absent period w.e.f. 29.11.05 to 30.11.05 = 01 day treated as NDP 85 14/2006 Absent period w.e.f. 15.12.05 to 16.12.05 = 01 day treated as NDP 86 14/2006 Absent period w.e.f. 18.12.05 to 19.12.05 = 01 day treated as NDP 87 92/2006 Absent period w.e.f. 19.01.06 to 23.01.05 = 04 days treated as NDP 88 92/2006 Absent period w.e.f. 09.01.06 to 12.01.06 = 03 days treated as NDP 89 185/2006 Absent period w.e.f. 12.03.06 to 15.03.06 = 03 days treated as NDP 90 204/2006 He was suspended and D/E initiated vide order No.801-09/Reader dated 30.03.06.
91 205/2006 Absent period w.e.f. 21.02.06 to 24.02.06 = 04 days treated as NDP 92 725/2006 Absent period w.e.f. 23.09.06 to 10.11.06 = 49 days treated as NDP 93 726/2006 Absent period w.e.f. 13.09.06 to 14.09.06 = 01 day treated as NDP 94 737/2006 Absent period w.e.f. 14.03.06 to 15.03.06 = 01 day treated as NDP 95 28/2007 Departmental Enquiry was initiated due to registration of case. 96 69/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 01.01.07 to 02.01.07 = 01 day treated as NDP 97 69/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 20.12.06 to 20.12.06 = 01 day treated as NDP 98 69/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 04.01.07 to 09.01.07 = 05 days treated as NDP 99 152/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 21.01.07 to 23.01.07 = 03 days treated as NDP 100 152/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 14.01.07 to 16.01.07 = 03 days treated as NDP 101 152/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 29.01.07 to 31.01.07 = 02 days treated as NDP 102 197/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 04.02.07 to 16.02.07 = 12 days treated as NDP 103 231/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 23.03.07 to 26.07.07 = 05 days treated as NDP 104 231/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 25.07.07 to 27.03.07 = 04 days treated as NDP 105 231/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 12.03.07 to 15.03.07 = 05 days treated as NDP 106 247/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 01.03.07 to 06.03.07 = 05 days treated as NDP 107 255/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 25.02.07 to 25.02.07 = 01 day treated as NDP KAMAL KUMAR 2023.08.29 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-14431-2017 (O&M) 15 2023:PHHC:112863 108 268/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 12.04.07 to 13.04.07 = 01 day treated as NDP 109 309/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 20.04.07 to 21.04.07 = 01 day treated as NDP 110 315/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 02.05.07 to 09.05.07 = 08 days treated as NDP 111 324/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 18.05.07 to 18.05.07 = 01 day treated as NDP 112 359/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 23.05.07 to 23.05.07 = 01 day treated as NDP 113 354/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 01.06.07 to 13.06.07 = 13 days treated as NDP 114 456/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 18.06.07 to 19.06.07 = 01 days treated as NDP 115 456/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 29.07.07 to 10.08.07 = 13 days treated as NDP 116 456/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 06.07.07 to 20.07.07 = 15 days treated as NDP 117 456/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 21.07.07 to 25.07.07 = 04 days treated as NDP 118 485/2007 His absent period w.e.f. 24.03.16 to 26.03.06 and 01.08.06 to 29.08.06 = 29 days treated as NDP and his Judicial custody period = 128 days will be decided after the outcome of Hon'ble Court orders.
119 500/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 23.08.07 to 28.08.07 = 05 days treated as NDP 120 500/2007 Absent period w.e.f. 29.08.07 to 31.08.07 = 02 days treated as NDP 121 -- His appeal was rejected by DGP Punjab Chandigarh vide his office order No.2486/E-2(2) dated 22.02.13 122 327/2014 His Revision-cum-Mercy Petition was rejected vide Punjab Govt.
Order dated 17.06.14
21. Even if the aforesaid punishments on previous occasions are not taken into account, still the absence of the petitioner for about one month without any justifiable reason cannot be taken lightly, particularly having regard to the fact that the petitioner was serving deparment of police i.e. a disciplined force.
22. This Court in a recent judgment delivered on 30.5.2023 in RSA No. 990 of 1997 titled as State of Haryana through Collector Gurgaon and others KAMAL KUMAR 2023.08.29 14:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-14431-2017 (O&M) 16 2023:PHHC:112863 versus Rajinder Singh Ex-Constable No.1118/Faridabad, while dealing with a similar matter held as under :-
"18. In this regard, it may be noticed that once as per the settled principles of law, unauthorized absence from duty is held to be a gravest act of misconduct, whether it is mentioned in the order or not that unauthorized absence from duty is a grave misconduct, said omission in the order of punishment will not be a ground to treat the said order of punishment as arbitrary or illegal. It is a conceded position that keeping in view the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9997 of 1995 decided on 10.11.1995, titled as State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh, the absence from duty is a gravest act of misconduct if the officer employed is a member of a disciplined force and for the said misconduct, the punishment of dismissal can be imposed.........."
23. Apart from the discussion made above wherein this Court finds that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the punishing authority, which has been upheld by the appellate authority, another aspect which also weighs against the petitioner is that the instant petition would also be hit by delay and latches inasmuch as the petitioner has approached this Court after more than 3 years of attaining of finality of dismissal order without furnishing any explanation for the same.
24. The petition is, thus, found to be sans merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
29.8.2023 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill )
kamal Judge
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
KAMAL KUMAR
2023.08.29 14:58
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document