ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The order under challenge was passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on a writ petition filed by the respondent.

3. The respondent had been recruited by the appellants as a constable on 30-6-1990. He was charged on 3-6-1994 for absence from duty for a period of 65 days and 14 hours. A disciplinary enquiry was held and he was found guilty of the charge. He was served with a notice to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. His reply was considered. The Senior Superintendent of Police then imposed the punishment of dismissal from service, finding that the respondent "cannot become a good employee and he is not fit for the Department". The respondent's appeal therefrom was rejected.

4. The respondent filed the writ petition impugning the aforesaid orders.

The High Court said: "It is undoubtedly correct that the petitioner is alleged to have remained absent from duty. It is also true that even on certain earlier occasions, he had been accused of absence." However, the High Court took into account certain facts. The first of these was that the respondent "belongs to a weaker section of the society. He is a member of the Scheduled Cast