JUDGMENT :

Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside:

(i) order dated 20.03.2015 (Annexure P-5) passed by Inspector General of Police, South Range, Rewari;

(ii) order dated 04.07.2015 (Annexure P-7) passed by Director General of Police, Haryana.

2. The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable on 11.11.2008. The respondent initiated departmental inquiry against him alleging that he had remained absent from duty for 24 hours and 20 minutes. The petitioner remained absent from duty from 20.08.2014 to 21.08.2014 for 24 hours and 20 minutes. The respondent initiated departmental inquiry wherein he was found guilty of absence from duty. He was dismissed from service by order dated 23.01.2015 passed by Superintendent of Police, Rewari. He preferred an appeal which came to be partially allowed by Inspector General of Police, Rewari. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.03.2015 reduced the quantum of punishment. The punishment of dismissal from service was converted into forfeiture of 10 annual increments with permanent effect. He preferred revision before Director General of Police which came to be dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2015.

3. Mr. Vipin Yadav submits that punishment awarded by authorities is disproportionate to alleged misconduct.

4. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana concedes that alleged punishment was awarded for absence from duty for 24 hours and 20 minutes. She further submits that petitioner is a part of disciplined force, thus, his conduct must be beyond the board. He is bound to maintain high standards of discipline.

5. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. As per Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as made applicable to the State of Haryana) (in short '1934 Rules'), a Police Officer may be dismissed from service for gravest act of misconduct or cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. The said Rule further provides that in passing award of dismissal from service, the Authority shall take care of length of service of the offender and his claim to pension.

7. Rule 16.2 of 1934 Rules for the ready reference is reproduced as below:-

'16.2. Dismissal.

(1) Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect or 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. Explanation.- For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the following shall, inter alia, be regarded as gravest acts of misconduct in respect of a police officer, facing disciplinary action:

(2) An enrolled police officer sentenced judicially to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month or to any other punishment not less severe, shall, if such sentence is not quashed on appeal or revision, be dismissed. An enrolled police officer sentenced by a criminal court to a punishment of fine or simple imprisonment, or both, or to rigorous imprisonment not exceeding one month, or who, having been proclaimed under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fails to appear within the statutory period of thirty days may be dismissed or otherwise dealt with at the discretion of the officer empowered to appoint him. Final departmental orders in such cases shall be postponed until the appeal or revision proceedings have been decided, or until the period allowed for filing an appeal has lapsed without appellate or revisionary proceedings having been instituted. Departmental punishments under this rule shall be awarded in accordance with the powers conferred by rule 16/1.

(3) When a police officer is convicted judicially and dismissed, or dismissed as a result of a departmental inquiry, in consequence of corrupt practices, the conviction and dismissal and its cause shall be published in the Police G