Wilful absence from duty over a prolonged period by a member of a disciplined force constitutes continued misconduct, justifying dismissal.

ORDER

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. (Oral). - This case has been taken up through Video Conferencing via Webex facility in the light of Pandemic Covid-19 situation and as per instructions.

2. Challenge in the instant petition is to the order dated 21.06.2005 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur and whereby the major punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner who was serving as a Constable. Further challenge is to the order dated 07.09.2020 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Appellate Authority affirming the action of dismissal.

3. Counsel submits that petitioner was appointed as Constable in Punjab Police on 24.05.1990. During his service tenure he earned various cash awards. Even commendation certificates were issued by the Department. However, petitioner suffered from some medical ailment and as such could not report for duty at Police Lines, Hoshiarpur w.e.f.11.11.2002. It is averred that petitioner proceeded back to his village and was treated by local quacks. Under such circumstances petitioner was not mentally stable and as such could not convey to the authorities concerned the basis of absence. It has also been averred that various communications were received from the department but on account of being in a state of depression and ill health, he could not respond to the same. Ultimately he was served with the order of dismissal dated 21.06.2005 (Annexure P-6). A certificate issued by DMC Hospital, Ludhiana dated 24.02.2010 has been appended as Annexure P-7 to assert that petitioner was diagnosed as a Schizophrenic patient. Thereafter petitioner continued taking treatment from DMC Hospital as also other places. Ultimately he preferred an appeal dated 08.07.2020 (Annexure P-8) against the major penalty of dismissal and the same stands dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 07.09.2020 (Annexure P-9) primarily on the ground of delay.

4. Counsel would argue that the petitioner was having 12 years of service to his credit and for which due weightage has not been given while taking a decision to dismiss him from service. Further submitted that the impugned orders cannot sustain as they suffer from non-application of mind as the health ailment that the petitioner was suffering from was ignored. Further urged that absence of the petitioner from duty was unintentional and bona fide and as such cannot be construed as an act of misconduct. Yet another submission raised is that the major penalty of dismissal is not commensurate to the charge of being absent from duty and as such even a lesser punishment could have been imposed. Further argued that the Punishing Authority as also the Appellate Authority have not given due credit to the petitioner as regards his unblemished service record as also length of service.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length and pleadings on record have been perused.

6. Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 mandates that 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.

7. What would constitute a gravest act of misconduct or continued misconduct proving complete unfitness for police service cannot be precisely defined and would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

8. In the facts of the present case, petitioner admittedly has remained continuously absent from duty since 11.11.2002. Perusal of the impugned order of dismissal at Annexure P-6 would reveal that on 11.04.2003 he had been placed under suspension and a regular departmental enquiry was instituted. One Inspector Harbhajan Singh was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. Petitioner chose not to associate in the enquiry proceedings. Findings having been returned against him as regards being absent from duty without due authorisation, a show cause notice dated 20.10.2003 along with the enquiry report was sent to the pe