JUDGMENT Mr. Augustine George Masih, J.:- Petitioner was recruited on ad-hoc basis as a Constable in Punjab Armed Police (PAP) on 29.08.1996 on priority basis because of the death of his brother while on duty, who was also a Constable. While he was posted at District Jail, Hoshiarpur, he was found absent on 21.05.2009 without permission/leave and an entry in the register at Rapat No. 8 at 7.30 P.M. on 21.05.2009 was recorded to this effect. He remained absent for 40 days and 22 hours and thereafter re-joined duty and entry to this effect i.e. Rapat No. 8 dated 01.07.2009 was entered at the District Jail, Hoshiarpur in the Roznamcha. Commandant of 80th Battalion, PAP Jalandhar, vide order dated 06.07.2009, appointed the Deputy Superintendent of Police as the Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry against the petitioner. On conclusion of the enquiry, report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer returning the finding that charges against the petitioner stood proved. On the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, to which punishing authority prima-facie concurred with, a show cause notice dated 15.09.2009 was issued proposing the punishment of dismissal from service. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to file reply within a period of 10 days. Petitioner submitted his written reply to the notice within the stipulated period but did not come present for personal hearing. 2. Another notice dated 19.10.2009 was served on the petitioner through his wife on 21.10.2009 giving him another opportunity to appear in person. He appeared before the Commandant 80th Battalion, PAP Jalandhar (punishing authority) in person on 26.10.2009 and submitted that he had fallen very ill and could not come present on duty. He requested to convert the period of his absence to leave and expressed his regret for absence from duty. As the petitioner had not submitted any evidence in support of his illness in the form of medical certificate or prescription from the doctor which would suggest that the doctor had recommended medical rest to him, the explanation, as submitted by the petitioner, was not accepted, thus, holding the petitioner guilty of the misconduct of the absence from duty. On perusing and considering his old service record, according to which, after his recruitment on 29.08.1996 as Constable, his 12 annual increments had been forfeited for the reason of his absence from duty on different occasions. On perusing and considering his old service record, according to which, after his recruitment on 29.08.1996 as Constable, his 12 annual increments had been forfeited for the reason of his absence from duty on different occasions. The total period of absence came to 1181 days, which was treated as non-duty period. Four times the punishment of condemnation and 7 days punishment of drill was awarded to him. He had earlier also been dismissed from service for absence from duty but was reinstated, on an appeal preferred by him when he gave an undertaking to improve his conduct. Keeping in view the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, which was accepted by the punishing authority and the earlier bad service record of the petitioner, a conclusion was drawn that the petitioner was a habitual absentee and punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) by the Commandant 80th Battalion, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt.-respondent No. 2. 3. Against this order of dismissal, petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police Administration, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt.-respondent No. 3, which appeal was dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2010. Further appeal/mercy petition filed before the Inspector General of Police, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt.-respondent No. 4 was dismissed on 13.05.2010 (Annexure P- 3). Revision-cum-Mercy Petition preferred to the Director General of Police, Armed Battalion, Jalandhar Cantt. was rejected on 13.10.2010 (Annexure P-4). Further appeal to the Director General of Police-respondent No. 5 was again dismissed on 12.04.2011 (Annexure P-6) and similarly, a mercy petition before the Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Home was rejected vide order dated 19.12.2011 (Annexure P-7). All these authorities, after going through the records, have come to a conclusion that despite various opportunities granted to the petitioner to improve his conduct, he has not shown any improvement and, therefore, being a habitual absentee and there being no further scope for improvement, petitioner could not be retained in a disciplined police force and the order of dismissal passed by the punishing authority was fully justified and in accordance with law. These orders have been challenged by the petitioner through the present writ petition. 4. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner suddenly fell ill and his position being very critical, he was unable to resume his duty and, therefore, applied for sanction of leave. These orders have been challenged by the petitioner through the present writ petition. 4. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner suddenly fell ill and his position being very critical, he was unable to resume his duty and, therefore, applied for sanction of leave. He could not come present for 40 days and 22 hours, which cannot be said to be an absence of such a dimension which would call for the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. The departmental enquiry was not conducted as per the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as principles of natural justice was not complied with. The petitioner has not been allowed to submit his defence in the enquiry proceedings before the Enquiry Officer as he has not been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the department and his full evidence was not properly recorded. He contends that the punishing authority has taken into consideration the entire service record of the petitioner while imposing punishment of dismissal without giving the petitioner any opportunity to rebut the earlier record of his service as neither any of the punishment orders and other records were supplied to the petitioner nor any show cause notice was issued in this regard prior to taking the earlier service record into consideration. He contends that this action of the respondents is not sustainable in the light of the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Jaspinder Singh, 2008 (3) SCT 262. His further submission is that absence of 40 days and 22 hours cannot be taken as serious and grave mis-conduct which could be categorized as a gravest act of mis-conduct inviting punishment of dismissal from service. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Dhan Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, 2008 (3) SCT 816. Accordingly, prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned orders and issuing directions to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance, have gone through the records of the case. 6. Accordingly, prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned orders and issuing directions to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance, have gone through the records of the case. 6. The basic contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that absence of 40 days and 22 hours from duty by the petitioner cannot be termed as a gravest act of mis-conduct which would invite the punishment of dismissal from service. To determine this aspect, Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 needs to be referred to here, which reads as follows:- “16.2 Dismissal (1) Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of 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. (2) If the conduct of an enrolled police officer leads to his conviction on a criminal charge and he is sentenced to imprisonment, he shall be dismissed: Provided that a punishing authority may, in an exceptional case involving manifestly extenuating circumstances for reasons to be recorded and with the prior approval of the next higher authority impose any punishment other than that of dismissal: Provided further that in case the conviction of an enrolled police officer is set aside in appeal or revision, the officer empowered to appoint him shall review his case keeping in view the instructions issued by the Government from time to time in this behalf. (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 Gazette. In other cases of dismissal when it is desired to ensure that the officer dismissed shall not be re-employed elsewhere, a full description roll, with particulars of the punishments, shall be sent for publication in the Police Gazette.” 7. In view of the above, it cannot be said that absence from duty cannot be termed as a gravest act of mis-conduct. In view of the above, it cannot be said that absence from duty cannot be termed as a gravest act of mis-conduct. In any case, the cumulative effect of the conduct of the employee can also add up to be termed as a gravest mis-conduct which would entail punishment of dismissal from service. Here the service record of the petitioner is dismal as in his span of about 13 years of service, 12 annual increments have been forfeited for absence from duty on different occasions. The total period of absence during this span comes to 1181 days, which has been treated to be non-duty period. four times he has been imposed the punishment of condemnation and 7 days punishment of drill. He had been earlier also dismissed from service for remaining absent from duty but has been reinstated in service on an appeal preferred by him but that has also not brought any improvement in the conduct of the petitioner. Petitioner is thus, a habitual absentee with no possibility of improvement in his conduct thus, disentitling him to any equitable relief. The punishment of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner is in accordance with the statutory Rules and does not call for any interference by this Court as there is not illegality therein. 8. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the statutory Rules have not been complied with during the enquiry proceedings, cannot be accepted as no such facts have been pleaded in the writ petition. The only assertion is that the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses of the prosecution and his entire evidence was not recorded. This is a mere statement made by the petitioner. Had he been aggrieved of such an action on the part of the Enquiry Officer he should have reported and complained the same to the higher authorities in this regard but no such pleading or document has been placed on record to suggest such a thing having taken place. The assertion that the petitioner was unwell and, therefore, could not attend to his duties again is without any basis as in the departmental proceedings, no medical certificate of illness or recommendation of the doctor prescribing medical rest to the petitioner had been produced. Even in the writ petition, there are no such documents on record. Mere bald statements of the petitioner cannot be accepted to be correct. 9. Even in the writ petition, there are no such documents on record. Mere bald statements of the petitioner cannot be accepted to be correct. 9. The last plea of the counsel for the petitioner that while taking into consideration the previous service record of the petitioner, the same was not mentioned in the show cause notice nor were the orders/documents imposing punishment upon the petitioner supplied along with the show cause notice and, therefore, the principles of natural justice have been violated, in support of which, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Jaspider Singh’s case (supra), cannot be accepted to be correct in the light of the fact that it is not the case of the petitioner that the punishments, which have been referred to and the absence period mentioned in the impugned order were incorrect or is not in accordance with the service record. Petitioner was well aware of the orders and the period of his absence from duty and, therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. In any case, as per Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, the punishing authority is entitled to take into consideration the previous service record to come to a conclusion with regard to the mis-conduct being a gravest misconduct. When such a power is conferred under the statute itself and the facts on the basis of the service record as recorded in the punishment order being undisputed, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and, therefore, it cannot be accepted that the principles of natural justice have been violated. In Jaspinder Singh’s case (supra), the Court did not take into consideration the Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which specifically confers powers on the punishing authority to look into the previous record of the employee for forming an opinion with regard to the gravity of the mis-conduct of the employee. The action of the respondents being in consonance with the statutory Rules cannot be said to be illegal especially when no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed. --------0.B.S.0------------