IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

314 CWP-3809-2002 Date of Decision: 27.08.2025 Ex-Constable Jai Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Gagan Pradeep Singh Bal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Suneel Ranga, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

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

i. order dated 09.10.1992 whereby he was dismissed from service;

ii. order dated 15.07.1999 whereby his appeal was dismissed; and iii. order dated 21.09.2000 whereby his revision petition was dismissed.

2. The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable on 31.05.1974. From March’ 1989 to May’ 1991, he remained absent from duty for 54 days and 9 hours. During the aforesaid period, he was absent on different occasions for different number of days. The respondent initiated departmental proceedings against him alleging absence from duty. The Inquiry Officer found him guilty and he was awarded punishment of dismissal from service vide order 09.10.1992. He unsuccessfully preferred appeal and mercy appeal before higher authorities including State Government.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, at the time of passing impugned order, was having 18 years’ service to his credit. He was guilty of absence from duty. He was never punished during 1974 to 1989. He remained absent in total for 54 days, thus, punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to alleged misconduct.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioner concededly remained absent for 54 days on different occasions during March’ 1989 to May’ 1991. The petitioner was guilty of gravest misconduct, thus, was liable to be dismissed from service.

5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides and perused the record with their able assistance.

6. The relevant extracts of order dated 09.10.1992 whereby petitioner was dismissed from service are reproduced as below: -

“On a careful consideration of the entire evidence available on the file, I found the allegations/charges as proved against the delinquent. Accordingly the delinquent was served upon with a show cause notice along with a copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer by my predecessor vide this office No.242/ST dated 21.2.92 and later on by the him undersigned on 1.9.92 against receipt calling upon him to show cause within 15 days from the receipt of this notice as to why a penalty of dismissal from the service be not imposed upon him. The delinquent submitted on application requesting therein that his reply in response to the show cause notice issued to him on 1.9.92 may kindly be considered the same reply which he had already been submitted in response to the show cause notice issued to him vide no.242/ST dated 21.2.92 in the same Departmental Enquiry. The delinquent raised the main plea in his reply that due to his illness he remained absent from duty. This plea of the delinquent is rejected being found without any substance because if the delinquent was really ill he should have got himself treated in the nearest General Hospital but he did not do so. It clearly shows that he was not actually ill and the medical certificates produced by him are bogus/arranged issued by the private doctors on payment. Moreover, the delinquent never informed the department nor applied for sanction of leave regarding his illness but absented himself without any leave or permission time and again. It is also pertinent to mention here that the absence of delinquent is neither from any leave nor continues but the same is time and again and relates to different places, dates and years. Hence, it clearly shows that the delinquent was not really ill during his absence period rather he is a habitual absentee and his plea regarding his illness is an afterthough (sic) and concocted one.