Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inder Pal Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 29 March, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
C.W.P.No.9320 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.9320 of 2010
Date of Decision:- 29.03.2012
Inder Pal Singh ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
***
Present:- Mr.Suresh Kumar Redhu, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)
Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 6.7.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Palwal, dismissing the petitioner from service and orders dated 19.3.2010 passed by the Inspector General of Police, South Range, Rewari rejecting the appeal preferred by him.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was recruited as Constable on 11.5.2001 under the Ex-gratia Scheme while he was posted in Police Station Hassanpur. He all of a sudden fell ill and was got admitted in Vedant Nursing Home, Raya (Mathura), Uttar Pradesh by his family members where he was treated for jaundice from 9.6.2008 to 22.9.2008. On 23.09.2008, petitioner joined C.W.P.No.9320 of 2010 -2- service after getting fitness certificate from the Doctor. He again fell ill and remained under treatment in the same Hospital from 3.10.2009 to 28.11.2009 due to infection of hepatitis and anemia. Due to absence from service, regular departmental enquiry was held against him on the ground of his absence from duty wherein he had taken the plea of his illness and despite best efforts made by him, he could not produce the doctor from Vedant Nursing Home, Raya ( Mathura ) to prove that he was in fact admitted in the hospital and had taken treatment from there. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding him guilty for absence from duty from 9.6.2008 to 23.9.2008 and then from 3.10.2008 to 28.11.2008 i.e. for a period of 164 days without informing the Department about his illness or the reasons for his absence from duty. In pursuance thereto, a show cause notice was served upon him by the Superintendent of Police, Palwal on 12.6.2009 (Annexure P-4) as to why major punishment be not imposed upon him. Reply was filed by the petitioner on 19.6.2009. On consideration of the reply, the same was not found satisfactory and, therefore, services of the petitioner were terminated vide impugned order dated 6.7.2009. Against this order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, South Range, Headquarters Rewari, which has been dismissed vide order dated 19.3.2010 (Annexure P-8). At this stage, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not absent from duty intentionally but due to his ill health, he was unable to attend his duties. The punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the respondents for absence from duty is too harsh which is not a gravest C.W.P.No.9320 of 2010 -3- misconduct attributed to him and thus, would require interference by this Court. His further contention is that his absence from duty does not fall within the prescribed punishment which could be termed as gravest misconduct under Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as applicable to State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as '1934 Rules') and, therefore, the punishment of dismissal cannot be imposed upon him. Reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dhan Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2008(3) SCT 816. Reliance has also been placed on a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Navtej Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1997(4) SCT 175, to contend that when the plea of ill health is taken by the employee, order of dismissal would be too harsh a punishment to be imposed upon him/her. He accordingly, prays that the writ petition be allowed by quashing the impugned orders.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner, even if he was admitted in hospital, should have informed the Competent Authority about his inability to attend his duties. Non- information by the petitioner itself shows the negligence on his part. Further, a member of the disciplined force cannot be permitted to absent himself from duty without intimation. Absence of 164 days from service by the petitioner itself reflects his conduct of absolute incorrigibility to continue as a police officer. That apart, petitioner is a habitual absentee, On two earlier occasions also, he has been found guilty of absence from duty for which five future increments with permanent effect were stopped on 24.4.2007 and thereafter three annual increments with permanent effect were stopped vide order dated 21.1.2008. This, he contends, leaves no C.W.P.No.9320 of 2010 -4- manner of doubt that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is fully justified which does not call for any interference by this Court.
I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.
Facts as have been projected above, depicts a grave picture with regard to the conduct of the petitioner who has firstly absented from duty from 9.6.2008 to 23.9.2008. He joined duty on 24.9.2008 and thereafter again absented from 3.10.2008 to 28.11.2008 which comes to a period of 164 days' absence from a disciplined force without intimation. In the departmental enquiry, petitioner has been unable to prove his ill health and his admission in Vedant Nursing Home, Raya (Mathura), as has been admitted by his counsel. If that aspect is also over-looked, there is no justification or explanation whatsoever on the part of the petitioner for not informing the department about his inability to attend duty or with regard to his reasons for absence. He has been such negligent that he did not even apply for leave from the Department and chose to remain absent from duty. A disciplined force cannot run with officials like the petitioner, who, on their whims and fancies stay at home and do not report for duty and absent themselves without any intimation/information or without giving any reason for their absence.
On earlier two occasions also, petitioner had been found guilty of absenting himself for which punishment of stoppage of five future annual increments with permanent effect and three annual increments with permanent effect was imposed on 24.4.2007 and 21.1.2008 respectively. This shows that the petitioner is a habitual absentee which aggravates the C.W.P.No.9320 of 2010 -5- conduct of the petitioner and this act would fall within the definition of gravest act of misconduct as provided under Rule 16.2 of the 1934 Rules.
Contention of the counsel for the petitioner that under Rule 16.2 of the 1934 Rules, absence from duty is not a gravest act of misconduct as in the explanation to the Rule itself eight situations have been highlighted for which the conduct of the employee can be termed as gravest misconduct. This contention although based upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Dhan Singh's case (supra) has earlier been considered by this Court in CWP No.4782 of 2010 titled as Beer Singh, Ex-Constable No.2392/FBD vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 14.03.2012, wherein it has been held as follows:-
"For appreciating the scope and ambit of Rule 16.2 (1) of the Rules, 1934 and the explanation attached thereto, reproduction of the said Rule would be essential which reads as follows:-
"16.2 Dismissal-(1) Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. In making such an award regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension.
"Explanation.- for the purposes of sub-rule
(1), the following shall, inter alia, be
C.W.P.No.9320 of 2010 -6-
regarded as gravest acts of misconduct in
respect of a police officer, facing
disciplinary action.-
(i) Indulging in spying or smuggling
activities;
(ii) Disrupting the means of transport or
of communication;
(iii) Damaging public property;
(iv) Causing indiscipline amongst fellow
policemen;
(v) Promoting feeling of enmity or hatred
between different classes of citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language;
(vi) going on strike or mass casual leave or resorting to mass abstentions;
(vii) spreading disaffection against the Government; and
(viii) causing riots and the strife."
Rule 16.2 (1) deals with the situation where the order of dismissal of a police officer can be passed. It provides that this punishment of dismissal shall only be awarded (i) for the gravest acts of misconduct and (ii) as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service C.W.P.No.9320 of 2010 -7- of the officer. While passing such a punishment, regard is mandated to be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension. Although 'gravest acts of misconduct' term has been used in the Rule but it has been held in State of Punjab vs. Gurdip Singh, 1995 (1) RSJ 641, that even a single act of misconduct can, in a given situation, amount to the gravest act of misconduct but the mandate of the rule making authority is clear that the punishment of dismissal from service has not to be awarded in the case of a misconduct of ordinary nature. In Bhagwat Parsad vs. Inspector General of Police and others, 1967 SLR 807, it has been held that the use of word 'acts' did not exclude a single act of misconduct. In order to give effect to the legislative intent words in plural number may be construed to include the singular and the words importing the singular only, may be applied to plurality of acts, things or persons. In order to gauge gravity of misconduct, what matters, is not frequency but as obliguity or delinquency.
It was for the police officer who judged the infraction of the police rules to determine the seriousness of the misconduct and to decide upon the suitability of the punishment. This would show that it is the gravity of the misconduct which would determine the punishment to be imposed upon the delinquent employee and for that such C.W.P.No.9320 of 2010 -8- misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service, if found, punishment of dismissal shall be awarded. Regard, however, under those circumstances, also shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension, which again would be dependent upon the misconduct proved against the delinquent employee.
Explanation to Rule 16.2 (1) has to be read in the context of the above. Although eight misconducts have been spelt out in this explanation, which have been mandated to be regarded as gravest acts of misconduct in respect of a police officer facing disciplinary action. If any of them are proved in the disciplinary proceedings to have been committed by a police official, nothing more is required as it would amount to a gravest act of misconduct. The word 'inter-alia' used between "the following shall" and "be regarded as gravest acts of misconduct in respect of a police officer, facing disciplinary action" in the explanation is very significant and indicates and explains the intent and purpose of the rule making authority. The word 'inter-alia', as per Chambers Dictionary, means 'among other things', which clarifies that there can be other acts of misconduct also which could be regarded as gravest acts of misconduct. Thus, assigning a restrictive meaning to the term 'gravest C.W.P.No.9320 of 2010 -9- acts of misconduct' to those acts only, which have been mentioned in the explanation, would be subtracting something from the rule itself as the intention of the rule making authority is not this. In Dhan Singh's case (supra), this aspect and the placement of the word 'inter- alia' used in the explanation has not been discussed and its effect has also not been considered. The explanation when read by giving effect to the expression 'inter-alia' and the place at which it finds mention would lead the Court to a conclusion, which is not in consonance with the one as reached in Dhan Singh's case. By not giving effect to the impression 'inter-alia' would virtually mean overlooking it as if the said expression did not exist in the rule itself which would result in obliterating it having the effect of virtually deleting it. This would amount to open and blatant violation of the simple meaning of the statute. It is a settled preposition of interpretation that each word used in the Statute has to be given effect to as per its literal meaning and effect and in doing so, effort should be made to fulfil the object with which the said word/expression has been used by its framers.
In the light of the above, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the misconduct of absence from duty cannot be a gravest act of misconduct as it does not find mention in the Explanation to Rule 16.2(1), C.W.P.No.9320 of 2010 -10- deserves to be rejected as depending upon the gravity of the misconduct, a single act of misconduct would fulfil the mandate of Rule 16.2 of the 1934 Rules subject however, to the qualifications attached thereto in the Rule itself."
In the light of the above, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner on this score cannot be accepted. Punishment as imposed upon the petitioner is in consonance with the misconduct which has been attributed to him for which no lessor punishment than the one imposed upon him is called for.
Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.
March 29, 2012 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE