The main legal point established is that unauthorized absence and the cumulative effect of continuous misconduct can justify the dismissal of a police officer, in accordance with Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.

The petitioner, who was serving as a Constable with the Haryana Police, assails the validity of order dated 25.8.2008, Annexure P1, whereby he has been dismissed from service. Challenge is also to the orders dated 30.10.2008 and 28.10.2009, Annexures P3 and P6 respectively, and in terms of which the penalty of dismissal has been affirmed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities.

2. Petitioner was enrolled as Constable in the Commando Police, Haryana in November, 2003. While posted at Haryana Raj Bhawan, Chandigarh, petitioner absented from duty w.e.f. 24.2.2008. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 29.2.2008. Petitioner reported back on duty on 18.3.2008. Regular departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the specific article of charge of having remained absent from duty for a period of 23 days and 8 hours. Inspector Ravinder Kumar Commando, Naval Karnal was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry report was furnished on 24.7.2008 holding the petitioner to be guilty and having remained absent from duty unauthorizedly for the period in question. On 6.8.2008, petitioner was served a show cause notice contemplating the imposition of major penalty of dismissal. Upon consideration of the reply submitted to the show cause notice, the Superintendent of Police, Commando Haryana Naval, Karnal passed order dated 25.8.2008, Annexure P1, dismissing the petitioner from service. Appeal having been preferred, the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.8.2008, Annexure P3, by the Inspector General of Police and even a revision petition thereafter has been rejected in the light of order dated 30.10.2009, Annexure P5, by the Director General of Police, Haryana.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the charge framed against the petitioner was towards his period of absence and such charge even if duly proved would not fall within the expression “gravest acts of mis-conduct” so as to justify the imposition of extreme penalty of dismissal. The impugned order of dismissal is also stated to be illegal inasmuch as the enquiry proceedings had been conducted in relation to a specific article of charge i.e. having remained absent for 23 days and 8 hours, whereas final order has been passed by observing that the petitioner on previous occasions had remained absent 31 times. Argument raised is that the petitioner had not been charged in respect of the previous 31 occasions of absence and as such, the present departmental enquiry could not have culminated in an order of dismissal. A submission as regards violation of principles of natural justice has also been raised by contending that it was Shri OP Narwal, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police Commando who was the complainant as also one of the prosecution witnesses during the course of enquiry and whereas the Enquiry Officer was an official junior in rank i.e. Inspector Ravinder Kumar. Learned counsel would contend that entrustment of departmental enquiry in the hands of a junior under such circumstances has clearly worked to the prejudice of the petitioner as an official of the rank of Inspector would certainly be swayed and influenced by the complainant as also prosecution witness holding a senior rank.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length and pleadings on record have been perused.

5. Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short 'the Rules 1934') and as applicable to the State of Haryana reads as follows:

“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.”

6. The charge levelled against the petitioner and which stands duly proved during the course of regular enquiry is of having remained absent unauthorizedly from duty for a