Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ex. C. Surinder Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 7 May, 2013
Bench: Surya Kant, Naresh Kumar Sanghi
LPA-1822-2012 -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
L.P.A. No.1822 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: May 07, 2013
Ex. C. Surinder Kumar ..... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. K.S. Rekhi, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
****
SURYA KANT, J.(Oral)
C.M. No.2137-LPA-2013 Reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 is taken on record, copy whereof has been given to learned counsel for the appellant.
Application stands disposed of.
LPA No.1822 of 2012 This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 09.11.2011 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the appellant's writ petition challenging the orders of his dismissal from service as well as those rejecting his revision petition and mercy petition, has been dismissed.
The appellant joined Punjab Police as a Constable on 06.07.1995. He absented from duty w.e.f. 11.08.2001 admittedly for 98 days. The appellant's plea was that his wife suddenly fell ill and he got her admitted in a Government hospital. He sent an application for leave along LPA-1822-2012 -2- with the medical certificates. He reported back on duty on 17.11.2001. A charge sheet was served upon him and his reply thereto was considered. After conducting departmental inquiry, the appellant was dismissed from service vide order date 06.09.2002. His appeal against the order of dismissal was dismissed by the DIG, Ludhiana Range. Then the appellant filed mercy appeal which was also dismissed by the Inspector General of Police. After exhausting the departmental remedies, the appellant approached this Court and as noticed above, his writ petition too was dismissed.
Still aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
Two-fold contentions have been raised on behalf of the appellant. Firstly, his learned counsel submits that the inquiry has been conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, as no adequate opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant. Secondly, the punishment of dismissal from service is too harsh keeping in view the length of service rendered by the appellant.
In support of his first contention, learned counsel referred to the following observations made by the Punishing Authority in order dated 06.09.2002:
" The enquiry Officer after joining him in the enquiry handed over him a copy each of the list of charges, list of witnesses, complaint and relevant documents. The enquiry officer gave him full opportunity to take note of the statements of the witnesses and gave full opportunity of arguments. On the basis of the statements of the witnesses, the enquiry officer prepared a charge sheet after the charges were proved and got it approved and a copy of the charge sheet was handed LPA-1822-2012 -3- over to him after joining him in the enquiry. The enquiry officer gave him full opportunity to give in writing the reply to the charge sheet alongwith list of witnesses. The delinquent employee after receiving the charge sheet did not produce any witness in his defence nor gave the reply in writing."
According to him, the aforesaid finding in contradiction of the following observations made by the revisional authority :
" I find from record that the petitioner did not produce any defence before the enquiry officer or the punishing authority. He neither submitted any list of defence witnesses nor filed his defence statement before the enquiry officer. He also did not submit reply to the show cause notice nor did he appear for personal hearing."
In our considered view, both the contentions are devoid of any merit and deserve outright rejection. On a comparative reading of both the orders, we find that ample opportunities were given by the enquiry officer to the appellant to submit his defence. The revisional authority has merely referred to the appellant's failure to avail those opportunities. There is thus no contradiction.
The appellant was a member of Punjab Police Force. Assuming that the plea taken by him regarding ailment of his wife was correct, it was imperative for the appellant to seek leave, get it sanctioned and then only to proceed on leave. He could not have firstly absented from duty and later sent application claiming leave as a matter of right. The defence plea/explanation given by the appellant otherwise does not inspire confidence for the reason that not only in the revisional order but in their written statement also the respondents have disclosed as to how the appellant was a habitual absentee and that there is not one but several LPA-1822-2012 -4- departmental punishments awarded to him in the past for being absent from duty. This latest absence from duty was for a period of 98 days and the appellant whose chequered service record clearly suggests him to be an indisciplined and incorrigible police officer, was sufficient enough for the respondent-Authorities to award the punishment of dismissal from service. No fault, thus, can be found with the orders passed by the respondents.
For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impunged judgment dated 09.11.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge.
Dismissed. Dasti.
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI)
May 07, 2013 JUDGE
sarita