Proper procedure in holding the inquiry, sufficiency of notices served, and the petitioner's entitlement to pension based on years of service.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved against the impugned order of dismissal dated 28.05.1997 as passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, and orders dated 13.10.1999 and 30.6.2000, whereby the authorities in appeal and revision upheld the order of dismissal.

2. The facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in District Rohtak in the year 1989. The petitioner was then deputed as gunmen in the office of ADC to Governor of Haryana at Raj Bjawan Chandigarh. The petitioner claimed House Rent allowance, but a complaint was filed against the petitioner by his brother-in-law regarding demand of dowry and maltreatment of his wife, sister of the complainant. The petitioner was to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani as an inquiry was ordered. The petitioner was to report before the office of Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani on 12.11.1996 but when he appeared, he was told to come back again on 17.11.1996. On the said date, the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, was busy on account of an inquiry in an air crash and as such the petitioner was directed to go back to the Raj Bhawan at Chandigarh and report on duty. The petitioner reported for duty on 19.11.1996. In the month of December, the petitioner went to the office of Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, for collection of his salary for the month of November when he was intimated that he was going to be dismissed from service as he had absented from duty.

3. A departmental inquiry was held and as the petitioner did not appear he was proceeded ex-parte and dismissed from service. The appeal and the revision filed by him were dismissed as well, upholding the order of dismissal. Hence, this writ petition.

4. Mr. Prateek Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was never served with any charge sheet nor was he informed about any departmental inquiry pending against him. It is contended that as per Rule 16.2 (1) of Punjab Police Act 1934, the act of being absent without leave does not fall within the ambit of gravest act of misconduct. It is further contended that there is no material on the record to prove incorrigibility and complete unfitness in the police, to warrant dismissal of the petitioner. It is also argued that the authorities concerned were well aware that the petitioner was residing in Chandigarh as he had claimed HRA, but the alleged service of show cause notices was shown to be effected upon him at his village address. It is also submitted that the authorities were to consider the length of service, which the petitioner had rendered, before dismissing him from service.

5. Per Contra, Mr. Tapan Yadav learned DAG Haryana would submit that that the petitioner in fact remained absent from duty from 12.11.1996 till the date of his dismissal i.e 28.5.1997. The ADC to the Governor of Haryana reported vide letter 12.11.1996 to respondent No.3, that the petitioner had not reported on duty since 12.11.1996 and that his services were no longer required in the office of respondent No. 4. It was also requested that the petitioner may be taken on District Strength. The petitioner was directed through Police Station Salahwas, his permanent home address, to appear before respondent No. 3, but the petitioner did not turn up and thereafter a notice dated 4.1.1997 was sent to the petitioner to join duty, but again he remained absent. Thereafter, a regular departmental inquiry was ordered to be held against the petitioner vide order dated 10.01.1997 and a notice was issued to the petitioner at his permanent address directing him to join inquiry, but again he did not turn up. The Inquiry Officer then sent a summary of allegations, list of PWs and documents along with the notice dated 2.2.1997, directing the petitioner to join inquiry, but again the petitioner remained absent. The Inquiry Officer was allowed to proceed ex-parte. The Inquiry Officer recorded the statement of 5 witnesses and framed