AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court impugning the enquiry report dated 05.08.2010 (Annexure P -1), order dated 31.08.2010 (Annexure P -2) passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarter, Gurgaon - respondent No.4 dismissing the petitioner from service, order dated 04.03.2011 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner by the Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon -respondent No.3 and the order dated 11.08.2011 (Annexure P -8) rejecting the revision of the petitioner by the Director General of Police, Haryana -respondent No.2.
(2.) IT is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 02.12.1988. He was relieved from Police Line, Gurgaon for election duty vide rapat No.31 dated 05.05.2009. He fell ill, due to which he could not report back and accordingly remained absent from duty. A rapat No.27 dated 08.05.2009 was recorded accordingly. After recovering from his illness, petitioner reported back on duty vide rapat No.11 dated 23.09.2009 after absence of 139 days. A departmental enquiry was ordered against him by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarter, Gurgaon vide order dated 23.01.2010, which was entrusted to the District Inspector, Gurgaon. Petitioner took a stand that he was seriously ill, because of which he could not attend to his duties and remained absent from 08.05.2009 to 23.09.2009. The Enquiry Officer, after holding the enquiry against the petitioner, submitted his report on 05.08.2010 (Annexure P -1). He contends that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are not sustainable in the light of the fact that the medical certificates and the treatment which the petitioner underwent during his absence period have not been taken into consideration. Impugning the order of dismissal from service, it has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that since the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are unsustainable because of non -consideration of the medical certificates produced by the petitioner, the impugned order deserves to be set -aside. His further contention is that the petitioner has rendered service with the respondents for about 21 years and 9 months and, therefore, as per Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to State of Haryana, petitioner's claim for grant of pension should have been taken into consideration. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Dhan Singh Versus State of Haryana and others, 2009(1) RSJ 62 to contend that absence from duty cannot be a gravest act of misconduct and, therefore, relying on the said Rule 16.2 is illegal. He further contends that the punishing authority should have taken into consideration the length of service and his claim for pensionary benefits prior to passing of the impugned order of dismissal. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Versus Dharam Singh, 1997(2) SCC 550 to contend that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is too harsh and the same should be converted to compulsory retirement instead of dismissal.
(3.) CHALLENGE to the order passed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority is also based upon the same submissions as has been recorded above. He, on this basis, contends that the impugned orders be set - aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service and in any case the punishment of dismissal be converted to compulsory retirement.;