Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 521 (PNJ)

Sandeep Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2005-04-26

M.M.AGGARWAL, S.S.NIJJAR

body2005
Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the paper-book. 2. The petitioner was enrolled as a Constable on 27.10.2000. He was on temporary duty from 20.2.2003 to 28.4.2003. During the aforesaid period, he remained absent. The petitioner was served a show cause notice on 10.6.2003 seeking his explanation as to why he should not be discharged from service under provisions of Rule 12.21 of the PPR. It was specifically stated that he remained absent from 20.2.2003 to 28.4.2003 (a total period of 65 days 14 hours and 15 minutes), without any leave or prior permission of the competent authority. It was also stated that his act or indiscipline shows that he was not reliable and unlikely to prove an efficient police officer. The petitioner submitted a reply and stated that he had fallen sick and he was having serious fever. It was only when he had got himself checked from the doctor, he came to know that he was suffering from serious fever. The petitioner also stated that he was unable to produce medical certificate when he joined duty. He, however, submitted the certificate alongwith the reply. After considering the aforesaid reply, by order dated 26.6.2003 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner was discharged from service under the Punjab Police Rule 12.21. This is an innocuous order and it does not make any mention of the absence of the petitioner. 3. Mr. Jain has vehemently argued that the order (Annexure P-3) is liable to be quashed on the short ground that it has been passed, without holding a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, it was incumbent on the respondents to hold a regular departmental enquiry as the order is founded on the misconduct of the petitioner. In support of the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Single Bench Judgments of this Court in the cases of Paramjit Singh V/s. The State of Haryana and Ors., 1991 2 RSJ 705 and Krishan Kumar V/s. State of Haryana and Ors., 1999 3 RSJ 125. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. We are unable to accept the case put forward by the petitioner. Undoubtedly, a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. He has been duly informed about the lapses committed by him. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. We are unable to accept the case put forward by the petitioner. Undoubtedly, a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. He has been duly informed about the lapses committed by him. He had submitted a detailed reply which had been considered by the respondents. After considering the reply, the respondents have passed an order of discharge exercising the powers under Punjab Police Rule 12.21. It is to be noticed that in the reply submitted by the petitioner, it has been candidly conceded that the petitioner remained absent from duty. He has only stated that his absence may be excused as he was suffering from illness. He has, however, stated that even at the time of joining the duty, he was not in possession of medical certificate, copy of which he had attached only with the reply to the show cause notice. 6. In the case of Paramjit Singh (supra), the order that had been communicated to the Constable, was that he had been "dismissed" from service w.e.f. 30.5.1990 under Police Rule 12.21. On this basis, it was held that the foundation of the order was misconduct. The aforesaid decision would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The respondents had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner to which he had filed a reply. The respondents have considered the reply. Therefore, it cannot be said that no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner. 7. In the case of Krishan Kumar (supra), although the petitioner was discharged from service on account of absence from duty, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. In fact the order of discharge had categorically averred that the petitioner was a habitual absentee. It was, in such circumstances, held by this Court that the order has been passed in violation of rules of natural justice. In the present case, the petitioner has admitted his absence from duty and he has given a reply to the show cause notice. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that there is a breach of rules of natural justice. 8. In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.