Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 May, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064811-DB
Neutral Citation No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(106) CM-1636-LPA-2024 in/and
LPA-24-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 09.05.2024
Amandeep Singh ......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab & others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr.Kulbhushan Raheja, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant(s).
Mr.Saurav Khurana, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
CM-1636-LPA-2024
1. Application for recalling the order dated 28.02.2024 whereby the
present appeal was dismissed in default is allowed in view of the averments
made in the application. Order dated 28.02.2024 is recalled, the main appeal
is restored to its original number and taken on Board for hearing today itself.
2. CM stands disposed of.
CM-65-LPA-2024
3. Application for condonation of delay of 36 days in refilling the
appeal is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application, duly
supported by affidavit of the counsel. Delay of 36 days in refilling the present
appeal is hereby condoned.
4. CM stands disposed of.
LPA-24-2024 (O&M)
5. Consideration in the present appeal is to the judgment dated
03.02.2022 passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP-1917-2022 whereby
the writ petition was dismissed.
6. The present appeal is barred by 538 days and the explanation
given is that the appellant had misplaced the contact information of the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064811-DB
(106) LPA-24-2024 (O&M) -2-
counsel and did not know about the dismissal of the writ petition on
03.02.2022. The appeal was thereafter filed on 23.08.2023. Thus, in our
considered opinion, firstly, no sufficient cause is made out as apparently the
appellant was serving as a Constable and is well versed with his legal rights.
He has failed to follow-up the prosecution of the writ petition with his counsel
and he has thus suffered on account of his own inaction.
7. Even otherwise, the Learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ
petition on the ground that the appeal was filed after a period of 4 years
against the order of dismissal from Government service on 19.08.2016
(Annexure P-5) passed by the Commandant of the 80th Battalion, Punjab
Armed Police, Jalandhar Cantt. on account of his absence from duty w.e.f.
01.04.2016. The punishing authority noticed that the Police Department is a
disciplined uniformed force and long absence was a grave offence. It was also
noticed that regular departmental enquiry was conducted and time had been
given to the appellant to respond to the same. He had received the notice
along with copy of the enquiry report but he had not given any reply and failed
to appear for personal hearing. A second chance was also given and notice
had also been delivered on his home address by special messenger but he did
not come. Thereafter, the appeal was dismissed, as noticed, on the ground of
delay of 4 years 1 month. The revision filed also met the same fate on
29.06.2021 (Annexure P-9). The Learned Single Judge, thus, noticed all these
facts while dismissing the writ petition.
8. Mr.Raheja has sought to raise a new argument that the Enquiry
Officer himself had framed the charges and prepared the list of witnesses and
therefore, the order passed was not sustainable.
9. We have perused the writ petition. The said argument was never
canvassed before the Learned Single Judge and therefore, the State never had
any opportunity to rebut the same. The writ petition being in the nature of
Original Jurisdiction, it was imperative for the litigant to have raised the said
issue so that it could have been squarely met by the State and responded while
referring to the relevant rules. In the absence of the said pleadings, the
argument which is now sought to be raised in not liable to be accepted,
especially keeping in view the background of the matter as the appeal is
patently time barred at two levels.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064811-DB
(106) LPA-24-2024 (O&M) -3-
10. The Full Bench of this Court in Sher Singh Vs. State of
Haryana, 1994 (1) PLR 456 has held that absence from duty by a person in
uniform can be fatal and services are likely to be dispensed with under Punjab
Police Rules, 1934, keeping in view the fact of absence.
11. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court
in State of Punjab & others Vs. Mohinder Singh, 2005 (12) SCC 182
wherein while allowing the appeal by noticing that there was absence of 5 ½
months, it was held to be that the conduct by a person in uniform could not be
accepted. The basic principle which has been time and again laid down is that
remaining absent from duty after the sanctioned leave by a uniformed
personnel is fatal.
12. The appellant voluntarily kept away from his duties for a period
of 4 months and was very much required by his department and the fact that
the matter was duly enquired upon and thus, there was absence from service
without permission. There is an admission and explanation given trying to
explain the circumstances in which the appellant was absent on account of
matrimonial issues. It was for the appellant to have put in appearance before
the competent authority also once he had been supplied the enquiry report
also. Having chosen not to do so, he would not be able to point out any
infirmity in the departmental proceedings. In such circumstances, we are not
inclined to interfere in the judgment passed by the Learned Single Judge
upholding the order of dismissal from service of the appellant.
13. Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, finding no merit in
the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. All pending application(s)
also stand disposed of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
09.05.2024 JUDGE
Sailesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
3 of 3
