IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

336 CWP-12732-2002 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 12.11.2025 Ram Phal Tomar …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Kamal Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders dated 01.09.1998 and

25.04.2000 whereby he was dismissed from service.

2. On 27.10.2025, this Court passed the following order: -

From the perusal of record, it appears that respondent initiated five inquiries against petitioner alleging absence from duty. The documents are further disclosing that chargesheet with respect to absence from duty during January’ 1986 to December’ 1986 was withdrawn vide order dated 09.01.1992. Chargesheet dated 25.07.1990 for absence from duty from April’ 1989 to April’ 1990 was withdrawn vide order dated 13.01.1991. The impugned order was passed for absence from duty from 05.04.1991 to 15.09.1991 (164 days). In the impugned order, it is also noticed that petitioner remained absent from duty from 27.10.1997 to 01.03.1998 and 16.03.1998 to 09.04.1998. He also remained absent from 24.05.1995 to 31.05.1996. Besides aforesaid period, he remained absent for 355 days and an inquiry was initiated against him. Inquiry for absence from duty during May’ 1995 to May’ 1996 was also initiated.

Learned State counsel seeks time to file status report with respect to alleged absence period.

Adjourned to 12.11.2025.”

3. In compliance of aforesaid order, the respondent has filed status report by way of affidavit dated 11.11.2025 of Sh. Himanshu Garg, I.P.S. Assistant Inspector General of Police (Administration), Haryana. The same is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.

4. The relevant extracts of the aforesaid affidavit are reproduced as below: -

“4. That it is submitted that prior to dismissal of the petitioner, a charge sheet was issued to him vide U.O. No. 301/SA-3 dated 01.05.1987 and departmental enquiry was conducted for his willful absence on various occasions in the year 1986. In this departmental enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated from the charges by the enquiry officer as the petitioner produced medical certificates for the periods he remained absent from duty. Accordingly, the Punishing Authority also exonerated the petitioner of the charges vide order No. 14144-46/B-5 dated 06.10.1997.

5. That it is submitted that another charge sheet was issued to the petitioner vide U.O. No. 7184/SA-3 dated 25.07.1990 and departmental enquiry was conducted against him for willful absence on various occasions in the year 1989-90. The petitioner was exonerated by the enquiry officer vide enquiry report dated 13.01.1991. However, the prosecution was not allowed to lead its case and witnesses were examined without the aid of presenting officer, hence, the Punishing Authority ordered to allow prosecution to lead the defence and conduct department enquiry vide memo no.

8996/B-5 dated 07.04.1992. Therefore, the departmental enquiry was conducted again in which the petitioner was found guilty vide dated 16.09.97 by the enquiry officer. In the meantime, he was dismissed from service in another departmental enquiry for his willful absence of 164 days 05.04.91 to 15.09.91 and the above said departmental enquiry for absence period of 1989-90 was kept in abeyance.

6. That it is submitted that another charge sheet was issued to the petitioner vide this office no. 2424/B-5 dated 29.01.92 for willful absence from 05.04.1991 to 15.09.1991 (164 days) and Superintendent of Police/Computer was appointed as enquiry officer. The enquiry officer completed the enquiry and submitted his report on 19.03.1993 and on the basis of this report the petitioner was dismissed from service vide this office