Sandeep Kumar vs State of Haryana and others

Augustine George Masih, J.—Prayer in this petition is for directing the respondents to decide the Mercy Petition preferred by the petitioner and the prayer has also been made that the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 30.03.2007 (Annexure P-13) is not sustainable as the same is a non-speaking order.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner proceeded on 30 days earned leave. He fell ill and thereafter, couldnot rejoin his duties for 195 days which is beyond the date of his leave, for which a department enquiry was held, in which he was held guilty and the punishing authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, vide his order dated 23.12.2006, imposed the punishment of stoppage of six future annual increments with permanent effect. Against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak, which, on consideration, was partly allowed vide impugned order dated 30.03.2007 (Annexure P-13) by reducing the punishment to stoppage of three annual increments with permanent effect. He contends that the petitioner has been denied the wages for the period he had remained absent and, therefore, he is entitled to the same although the said period has been regularized. His contention is that after the regularization of the period, for which he had remained absent, no punishment could be imposed on him as the said period stands condoned. In support of this contention, counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of State of Punjab vs. Balkar Singh, 2000 (2) SCT 565 and Punjab State v. Rur Singh (died) through his L.Rs. , 2000 (2) SCT 60, to contend that the punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with permanent effect could not have been imposed on the petitioner by the respondents.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance, have gone through the records of the case.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 23.12.2006 clearly shows that the petitioner had contended that he was unwell, however, he failed to produce the doctor, who had treated him during his illness, in the departmental enquiry although he was examined as defence witness. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner having been found guilty of remaining voluntarily absent for 195 days, which is a long period, punishment of stoppage of six future increments with permanent effect was imposed on the petitioner. On appeal, the same has been reduced to stoppage of three annual increments with permanent effect. The orders passed by the authorities appear to be passed by taking a lenient view, which has been taken in the case of the petitioner, who has absented himself without informing the department and overstayed the leave, which is not expected in a disciplined force and, therefore, the orders are in accordance with law.

The contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the period having been regularized by the respondents although he has not been paid the salary for the said period, would amount to condonation of the absence period of the petitioner and, therefore, no punishment can be imposed on him, cannot be accepted in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash vs. State of Punjab and others, 2011 (4) RSJ 542 wherein it has been held that this exercise is being done only to make the records set and does not amount to condonation of the period of absence.

The writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed.