JUDGMENT :

DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA, J.

1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.06.2015 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.5, vide which, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. Challenge is also made to the subsequent orders passed by the higher authorities, vide which, the abovesaid order of dismissal dated 12.06.2015 (Annexure P-5) has been upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined Police Department as Constable in the year 1989. It transpires that while the petitioner was posted in District Khanna, he remained absent from duty for 159 days, 23 hours and 10 minutes for the period from 21.08.2013 to 28.01.2014. In view of the abovesaid absence, charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner duly filed reply to the charge-sheet. The contention raised by the petitioner in the reply filed to the charge-sheet was not found to be creditworthy and as a consequence of this, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The enquiry officer held the charges proved against the petitioner. The punishing authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and passed an order dated 12.06.2015 (Annexure P-5), vide which, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Aggrieved against the order dated 12.06.2015 (Annexure P-5), the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellant authority and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 06.01.2016 (Annexure P-4). Aggrieved against the abovesaid orders, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the revisional authority which was also dismissed vide order 14.04.2016 (Annexure P-3). Aggrieved against the abovesaid orders, the petitioner filed a revision-cum-mercy petition before respondent No.2, however, the same was also dismissed on 07.11.2016 (Annexure P-2). Aggrieved against the abovesaid order dated 07.11.2016 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner filed a mercy petition before the Home Secretary, Punjab, which was also dismissed vide order dated 06.07.2018 (Annexure P-1). As per the petitioner, the absence from duty was not willful and it was beyond his control. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the abovesaid orders.

3. The only contention raised by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is in respect of quantum of punishment. As per the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed in the police department in the year 1989. Taking into consideration the length of service, the punishment awarded by the respondents to the petitioner is harsh and is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and thus is liable to be set-aside and the order of punishment of dismissal be converted into lesser punishment. Learned senior counsel has relied on the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court being CWP-19196-2009 titled as Napinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others decided on 06.08.2012.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that a perusal of the facts of the present case would show that the petitioner remained willfully absent from duty for 159 days, 23 hours and 10 minutes for the period from 21.08.2013 to 28.01.2014. He further submits that the petitioner had earlier also remained absent from duty and in fact, the petitioner was also found to be habitual of intoxication while on duty. As such, the petitioner has rightly been dismissed from service. Learned counsel further submits that taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner, the punishment imposed by the respondents i.e. dismissal from service, cannot be held to be harsh or disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. As such, no interference is warranted in the impugned orders passed by the respondents.

5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length and have perused the record with their able assistance.

6. It is not in disp