Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"R/Ct.Bhupender Singh No.4/634 now 3414/FBD, is a habitual absentee and unlikely to prove an efficient police officer. Therefore, he is here-by discharged under PPR 12.21 with immediate effect. Orders be booked accordingly.
Sd/-
Dy. Commissioner of Police Hqrs, Faridabad."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a regular departmental enquiry was ordered by respondent No.4 against the petitioner on 26.10.2012 for indiscipline, negligence and carelessness on account of absenting from duties and an Inquiry officer was also appointed who initiated the proceedings by issuing charge-sheet along with list of witnesses and documents and while the proceedings were pending, order Annexure P/4 dated 22.03.2013 was passed discharging the petitioner from service under Rule 12.21 of the PPR Rules as applicable to the State of Haryana by recording that the petitioner was a habitual absentee and unlikely to prove to be an efficient police officer and in the circumstances, the order of discharge 3 of 10 being stigmatic, could not be termed as a discharge simplicitor, therefore, was legally unsustainable.

8. It needs noticing that although the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet Annexure P/2 for willful absence from duty from 15.11.2012 to 25.12.2012 for 39 days 14 hours and the services of the petitioner were discharged on account of his being a habitual absentee, therefore, unlikely to prove to be an efficient police officer vide order Annexure P/4 dated 22.03.2012, reply filed by the respondents records the petitioners absence from duty without any sanctioned leave or prior permission from the competent Authority on the following occasions :

12. In Sukhwinder Singh's case (supra) the order of discharge was also an order of discharge simplicitor. Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that the impugned order set aside by the High Court on the basis of a statement made in the written statement that the respondent was a habitual absentee, consequently, there was direct nexus between the order of discharge of the respondent from service and his absence from duty, therefore, the order of discharge from service was punitive in nature calling for regular enquiry under Rule 16.24 of the Rules was unsustainable because the respondent was on probation having been appointed about 8 months ago and only a simple order of discharge had been passed and mere holding of preliminary enquiry where explanation was called from an employee would not make an otherwise innocuous order of discharge or termination from service punitive in nature. Relevant extract of the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sukhwinder Singh's case (supra) is reproduced as under :