- (1.) The petitioner, who was working as Constable in the Punjab Police has impugned by way of filing the present petition the order dated 3.5.1999 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda imposing upon him the extreme penalty of dismissal from service. Also under challenge are the orders at Annexures P-2 and P-4, whereby the appeal as also revision preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal have been rejected.
(2.) Facts in brief may be noticed hereunder:- The petitioner had joined the Police Department on 11.11.1989 as Constable. A departmental inquiry was initiated against him on the allegation that he had remained absent from duty for a period of 72 days 17 hours and 25 minutes i.e. w.e.f. 8.4.1998 to 19.6.1998 and that he had also absented himself continuously w.e.f. 8.7.1998. An Inquiry Officer had been appointed and inspite of repeated notices having been served upon the petitioner, the petitioner had not joined the inquiry proceedings and accordingly, he had been proceeded ex-parte. An inquiry report had been furnished holding the petitioner guilty of having absented himself without any justifiable reason. The punishing authority upon consideration of the matter and having agreed with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer issued a show cause notice to the petitioner proposing the extreme penalty of dismissal but inspite of having been served with such notice no reply had been filed. The impugned order dated 3.5.1999 had as such been passed by the punishing authority i.e the Senior Superintendent of Police imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal from service on account of a total absence from duty of 192 days 7 hours and 45 minutes. Vide Annexure P-2 the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Faridkot has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner and thereafter, the Inspector General of Police, Punjab vide order dated 15.3.2000 (Annexure P-3) has even rejected the Revision-cum-Mercy petition preferred by the petitioner. Resultantly, the present writ petition.
(3.) Mr. Sunil Chadhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued the present petition primarily on the ground of nonconsideration of the provisions of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules. It has been strenuously contended that the dismissal of the petitioner on account of absence from duty does not constitute "gravest act of misconduct" as defined under Rrule 16.2 read with the explanation appended thereto and accordingly, it has been contended that the impugned orders of dismissal affirmed in departmental appeal and revision are illegal and as such liable to be quashed.;