Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order of dismissal dated 19.2.2010 (Annexure-P-5) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Mewat at Nuh on the ground of being absent from duty, order dated 22.3.2011 (Annexure-P-7) passed by the Inspector General of Police, South Range, Rewai-respondent No. 3 rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner and order dated 25.5.2012 (Annexure-P-8) passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana-respondent No. 2 dismissing the revision petition preferred by him.
(2.) Petitioner states that he was appointed as Constable in Haryana police on 4.12.1998 and was posted in Mewat district. On 3.11.2008, petitioner was bitten by a mad dog for which he got treatment from Community Health Centre, Nuh (Mewat). During this period, family members of the petitioner were falsely implicated in a murder case and they were kept in judicial custody. Petitioner in the light of these circumstances applied for 140 days' earned leave on 4.11.2008. On this application, petitioner was granted only two days' leave by the Superintendent of Police, Mewat. Due to the family circumstances, petitioner went into depression and could not re-join duty. He got treatment from Vaid Hari Parkash Sharma, Chief Medical Officer, Shree Mukund Ayurved Bhawan, Chhapar, District Bhiwani, who issued a certificate dated 10.11.2008 (Annexure-P-2) that petitioner was suffering from disease of depression and it was essential for him to take medicine and was also advised bed rest with effect from 10.11.2008 to 4.8.2009. Since the petitioner did not join duty after the expiry of his leave, in the meantime, petitioner was transferred from Escort duty, Nuh to Police Post Khori Kalan and was relieved, vide rapat No. 13, dated 10.11.2008. Petitioner did not join duty at the place of posting, i.e. Police Post Khori Kalan and accordingly he was marked absent, vide rapat No. 9, dated 29.11.2008. A notice was sent through one Constable Arvind Kumar to join duty at his residential address which he refused to take nor he did come present on duty. Thereafter, he was contacted on his mobile phone by the establishment branch to come present on duty, but he refused to do so. Despite various messages sent and intimations on his mobile phone, he remained absent from duty. Accordingly, it was decided to initiate departmental inquiry against the petitioner, vide order dated 29.5.2009.
(3.) Notice was issued to the petitioner to join inquiry, who came present on 5.8.2009 when the list of allegations, list of witnesses and list of documents were supplied to him. He denied the allegations levelled against him, on which the prosecution proceeded to record evidence in the departmental inquiry. Witnesses were examined in the presence of petitioner and he was given opportunity to cross examine the same, which the petitioner did not avail of. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, chargesheet was prepared by the Enquiry Officer on 2.9.2009 against the petitioner, which was served upon him, according to which petitioner had willfully absented himself from duty from 10.11.2008 to 4.8.2009. This chargesheet was served upon the petitioner on 8.9.2009 after the approval of the Superintendent of Police, Mewat and time was granted to the petitioner to file reply and to examine witnesses in his defence. Petitioner denied the allegations levelled against him in chargesheet and submitted an application for producing two defence witnesses. The defence witnesses were examined during the departmental inquiry. Both these witnesses were related to the petitioner and they alleged that because of registration of a criminal case against the family members of the petitioner and there being no other person to look after family except the petitioner, he could not join duty. He was bitten by a mad dog for which he underwent treatment. He was under deep mental tension and he could not come present on duty.;