Constable Harjinder Singh vs The State of Haryana and Others

Alok Singh, J.—Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of certiorari

challenging the order dated 27.09.1994 (Annexure P/1) passed by Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, whereby petitioner was directed to be

dismissed from police service and orders dated 09.11.1994 (Annexure P/3) and 30.01.1996 (Annexure P/5) passed by the higher authorities on

the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner.

The brief facts of the present case are that petitioner was enrolled as Constable on 17.04.1989 in the Haryana Police; petitioner remained

absent unauthorisedly from his duties for 77 days, 15 hours and 5 minutes during the year 2003; enquiry officer was appointed on 24.11.1993,

who served the petitioner with summery of allegations, supported by list of prosecution witnesses and list of documents on 20.12.1993; petitioner

submitted his reply before the Enquiry Officer; Enquiry Officer having heard returned finding holding the petitioner guilty of charges; show cause

notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.04.1994 and reply to show cause notice was filed on 30.04.1994; thereafter on the transfer of Sh.

Mohinder Lal, the then Superintendent of Police, another show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 10.06.1994 and thereafter, respondent

No. 4 passed the impugned order dated 27.09.1994, dismissing the petitioner from service for remaining unauthorisedly absent for 77 days from

the duties. Petitioner, thereafter, approached the D.I.G., Ambala Range, by way of appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.10.1994.

Petitioner, thereafter, filed revision petition before the Director General of Police, which too was dismissed vide order dated 30.01.1996.

Undisputedly, prior to the unauthorized absent of 77 days, the ground of impugned dismissal order, petitioner also remained absent for 86 days

from 04.09.1991 to 01.12.1991 and was also found absent from duties on 21.03.1990, 06.01.1992, 08.05.1993 to 17.05.1993 and 13.11.1993

to 15.11.1993 and for all those unauthorized absence, petitioner was awarded minor punishments. It seems the petitioner is not disciplined

constable. He is in habit to remain absent unauthorisedly.

In the opinion of this Court, petitioner is a habitual absentee and for his prior unauthorized absence, he was awarded minor punishments and

again petitioner did not mend his ways and again remained absent unauthorisedly for 77 days, hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the

impugned order. Petitioner is not entitled for any sympathy from this Court. Police Force is a disciplined Force and unauthorised absent cannot be

and should not be tolerated.

Petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed.