Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 March, 2022
CWP-1345-2020 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.1345 of 2020 (O&M)
Date of Decision: March 22, 2022
Paramajit Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present:- Mr. Upender Prasher, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Jasleen Kaur, DAG Punjab.
********
JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)
The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227
of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction, especially in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated
17.05.2004 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.5 whereby, the
petitioner has been dismissed from service and subsequent order dated
16.01.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.4, order dated
18.02.2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.3, order dated
26.02.2015 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.2 as well as order
dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.1, whereby, the
Appeal/Revision/Mercy Petition of the petitioner have been dismissed.
In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was
1 of 5
appointed as Constable on 29.09.1993 in the Punjab Police Force and in the
month of July 2003, the petitioner was posted in police lines Majitha, where
he remained absent due to his illness and remained unable to join his duty
and thereafter, he was treated as absent from duty. It is submitted that the
petitioner, due to his illness, was undergoing treatment and the department
initiated proceedings for his absence. It is stated that the petitioner could
not appear before the Enquiry Officer and ultimately, on the basis of the ex
parte enquiry, the charges were held to be proved against him and
thereafter, vide order dated 17.05.2004 (Annexure P-1) he was ordered to be
removed from services. Aggrieved against the order of removal from
services, the petitioner herein filed statutory appeal, revision and the Mercy
Petition, however, all came to be dismissed. All the said orders have been
assailed in the instant writ petition.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would
argue that the authorities have considered the repeated absence of the
petitioner as the sole reason and did not consider the medical evidence put
forth by the petitioner that he was ill, therefore, his claim for reinstatement
should be considered. It is contended that the orders, so passed by the
official respondents, are illegal, unjust and improper, therefore, the same are
liable to be quashed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner would rely upon judgments rendered by the Apex Court in
Collector Land Acquisition Anant Nag and another vs. Ms. Katiji and
others, AIR 1987 SC 1353, Prem Chand vs. Rup Chand, 2001(SUP-1) JT
86, State of Nagaland vs. Lipok AO and others, AIR 2005 SC 2191 and
Commissioner Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara vs. Labour Court Bhilwara and
2 of 5
another, 2009(3) SCC 525.
Notice of motion was issued in the matter, pursuant to which
the respondents have put in their appearance and filed their reply.
Learned State counsel would argue that the petitioner willfully
absented himself from duty without any leave or permission from the
competent authority and absent is a gravest act of misconduct in the
disciplined force. It is contended that due to his continuous absence from
duty, the petitioner was placed under suspension and a regular departmental
enquiry was initiated against him. The enquriy officer started departmental
enquiry against the petitioner and issued summary of allegations along with
list of witnesses and issued various notices to the petitioner, which the
petitioner personally noted, however, did not join the departmental enquiry.
The same were also sent at the address of the petitioner through special
messenger, which were duly received by his wife in the presence of an
independent witness of the village, however, in spite of that, the petitioner
did not join the departmental proceedings. Various other notices were also
sent to the petitioner with the direction to attend the office of enquiry officer
and join the departmental enquiry against him and defend himself, but
despite receiving the notices personally under his signature, he did not
intentionally join the departmental proceedings. Due to this reason,
approval for ex parte proceedings against the petitioner was accorded by the
competent authority. It is contended that after completing the enquiry, the
enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty on the charges of absence levelled
against him and sent the enquiry file to the competent authority. The
petitioner was reinstated provisionally without prejudice to the decision of
3 of 5
departmental enquiry pending against him and a show cause notice was
issued to him along with copy of finding of departmental enquiry, however,
despite receiving the same personally, the petitioner did not submit his
written reply within the stipulated period, nor personally appeared to defend
himself. A reminder was also sent to the petitioner in this regard, but the
petitioner did not bother to the same and, thereafter, the petitioner was
dismissed from service w.e.f. 17.05.2004 and his absence period was treated
as non-duty period without pay.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties, apart from perusing
the pleadings of the case.
A perusal of order dated 17.05.2004 passed by Senior
Superintendent of Police, Majitha (Annexure P-1) makes it clear that the
petitioner herein started absenting himself from duty w.e.f. 16.04.1995. In
the year 1995, he remained absent from duty six times, in the year 1996, he
remained absent from duty six times, in the year 1998, he remained absent
from duty six times, in the year 1999, he remained absent from duty four
times, in the year 2000, he remained absent from duty two times, in the year
2001, he remained absent from duty three times, in the year 2002, he
remained absent from duty three times and in the year 2003, he remained
absent from duty three times, for different dates, as detailed therein. The
statutory appeal, revision and the mercy petition also came to be dismissed.
This court is of the considered view that in case, the petitioner was suffering
from some ailment, he could have got his leave sanctioned or could have
informed the department, but he did not bother to do so. Further, despite
providing number of opportunities by the department to the petitioner to
4 of 5
join the departmental proceedings, he again did not bother to do so. It is the
stand of the petitioner herein from the very beginning that he was ill and
taking the medical treatment, however, no document has either been
produced before the department during enquiry or otherwise before this
Court. The case law relied upon by counsel for the petitioner is totally
distinguishable and cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the
present case. Under this peculiar situation, the contention raised by the
petitioner that he was ill and getting the medical treatment, cannot be
accepted as gospel truth. By any stretch of imagination, the orders passed
by the competent authorities in the present case do not suffer from any
illegality or infirmity, rather, the same are speaking one.
Finding no ground to interfere in the instant petition, the same
is hereby dismissed.
(JAISHREE THAKUR)
March 22, 2022 JUDGE
vijay saini
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
