K KANNAN, J
1.A police constable was dismissed from service on 11-03-1993 for the gross misconduct of habitual absence after enquiry. He has been hovering around Courts and before other authorites with appeals, revisions and writ petitions incessantly. The same degree of alacrity if he had shown either during service or during initial enquiry, perhaps he may have come by the position that he finds himself placed now. The writ petition seeks for a Mandamus to direct the order of dismissal made on 11-03- 1993 to be treated as one of compulsory retirement with all consequential benefits permissible under the law. The other relief that he claims is the quashing of several orders passed by the disciplinary authority and by the authorities in the successive hierarchies that have disposed of his memorials against him. 2.It is not his case that there had been any lapse in the issuing of show- cause notice or in the procedures adopted by the disciplinary authorities. His contention is that the Courts have always interpreted Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as requiring the disciplinary authority to consider the length of service and the effect of retiral benefits whenever an employee faces the prospective dismissal from service. By relying upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ex Constable Tarsem Singh versus State of Punjab and others 1996(2) RSJ 599, the petitioner wants to contend that the punishment imposed for having remained absent for a period of 366 days by removal from service was liable to be interfered with when the Court found that the punishment inflicted for allegations which did not form part of charge sheet and which adopted procedures that were contrary to the principles of natural justice, was CWP 20038 of 2008 --2-- liable to be set aside. He made particular reference to Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules where this Court has held that mere absence from duty could not be treated as an act of gravest misconduct as to warrant the punishment of dismissal. According to the petitioner, he had joined the department as Constable in the year 1971 and the dismissal effected without taking note of the service for 11 years for over 21 years was grossly unjust.
3.We would have no difficulty in following the decision of the Bench in the interpretation that it has made if this case could have been brought within the four corners of the principle of law laid down by several bench decisions of this Court while interpreting Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules. On the other hand, this case of constable whose conduct has been found to be unsatisfactory does not to avail to him any sympathetic consideration. The first order of dismissal which was passed on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer where the disciplinary authority had particularly referred to this aspect in paragraph 3 of the order reads as follows :- "The next plea put forth by the defaulter regarding the provisions PPR 16.2(1) is also untenable as the defaulter has a checkered service record. He has a long spell of wilful absences. This all proves him total unfit for retention in the police force, as he has proved not to be corrigible. It is true that the defaulter has a long service i.e. more than 20 years service, but, in my view, that cannot be any bar in teaching a lesson to such a delinquent official as the defaulter has proved to be. As such, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rama Kant Misra versus The State of U.P. (1983) (1) SLR-135 does not apply in this case.
In view of the above, the reply of the defaulter has been found quite unsatisfactory. Since the defaulter is also absenting himself now-a-days and the instant departmental enquiry has been completed against him ex-parte, therefore, the defaulter could not be provided an opportunity of personal hearing before me. However, I am convinced on going through the departmental enquiry file that the defaulter has nothing to defend himself. Had he anything to produce in his defence, he might have turned up and defend himself adequately. All this makes me think that the defaulter is little anxious about the consequences of the departmental enquiry.
As regards the quantum of punishment likely to be inflicted upon CWP 20038 of 2008 --3-- the defaulter, I have taken into consideration every pros and cons of the matter, including the statements of prosecution witnesses, and the findings returned by the enquiry officer, but found nothing favourable to the defaulter. The police is a disciplined force, in which the presence and alertness of every member, irrespective of rank or position, are required round-the-clock. Any laxity on any part of the force member may prove disastrous. Especially, during the period to which the absence of the defaulter relates, the police remained face to face to counter terrorism. The absence of the defaulter in such a period cannot be taken lightly. As such, the misconduct of the defaulter is inexcusable and there is no point of showing any leniency towards him. As such, after pondering over the whole issue, I do not find any reasons for scaling down the proposed punishment in respect of the defaulter and, as such, hereby order dismissal of the defaulter from service with immediate effect."
4.The disciplinary authority had taken particular note of even the fact that the delinquent had deliberately stayed away at every stage of the proceedings before the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority also took notice of the fact that it was a crucial time when the police had perforce to counter a terrorism and the unauthorised absence during the said period was a gross dereliction. Even the appellate authority had specifically adverted to the conduct of the petitioner which impelled the authorities to take strict view of his conduct and particularly of the fact that the petitioner who was posted in the police station, Panchkula wherefrom on 08-11-1988 he was deputed to the Sessions Court, Ambala for producing the file of Case Number 171 of 1988 for offence under section 406 IPC but he did not report back continuously for duty without any leave or permission and having perused all the past records and conduct, the appellate authority was of the opinion that there was no scope for interference. The revision submitted to the Director General of Police referred to the fact that the authority had carefully gone through the revision petition, departmental enquiry filed along with other relevant documents and he had found that the various pleas taken by the petitioner have been found to be devoid of any merits.
5.Petitioner had not left the matter there to reside at the disposal of the writ petition. He had also filed the memorandum to the Home Secretary Home Department when he was directed to consider his memorial and passed suitable orders by a direction from the High Court in CWP 10758 of 2007. The Authority viz the CWP 20038 of 2008 --4-- Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, while disposing of the memorial vide his order dated 04-01-2008 held that he had carefully considered the memorial filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal of the services of the petitioner but still he found no ground to interfere with it. No doubt, he has stated that there is no provision for memorial under the Rules. The counsel for the petitioner challenges, by reference to appendix 11 relating to the Rules regarding submission of memorial, that 'Memorial' as contemplated by the Rules shall include petitions, letters and applications of the nature of memorial. These instructions apply to memorials addressed to the Governor of Punjab or the State Govt. by persons who have been in civil services to the Punjab Govt. in respect of matters arising out of such employment and who are or were subject to the rule making power of the Governor. The memorials shall be in addition to and not in derogation of rules governing the conditions of service. The memorial is required to be submitted through the Head of the Department to which the memorialist belongs or belonged. The Home Secretary has stated that he has considered the contention of the petitioner but he has found no scope of interference with the decision taken already by the disciplinary authority. Although his observation that there was no provision for any memorial under the Punjab Police Rules, was not correct. The Principal Secretary had considered the representation but still found that there was no ground for interference.
6.We are unable to persuade ourselves to take a different view from how the disciplinary authorities have considered the issue and we are of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition warranting a fresh consideration of all the aspects which have been pressed into service in the writ petition.
7.This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as devoid of merits.
