- (1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 1.12.2003, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa vide which the petitioner, a constable in the Police Department, was dismissed from service on the ground of remaining absent for 44 days, 3 hours and 25 minutes. The petitioner has also challenged orders dated 6.2.2004 and 10.10.2005 vide which his appeal/revision petitions filed against the order of dismissal, were rejected by the Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Zone, Faridkot and the Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Punjab.
(2.) The solitary contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the orders aforementioned are liable to be set aside on the ground that at the initiation of the departmental proceedings, petitioner was not served with a charge-sheet along with the list of charges against him.
(3.) Having examined the documents on record, we are afraid we cannot agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A detailed order has been recorded by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa on 1.12.2003 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service. A perusal of this order would show that for the purpose of associating the petitioner with the departmental proceedings, the charges along with the list of witnesses were prepared, to be given free of cost to the petitioner. Messages were sent to him for this purpose on 20.1.2003, 20.2.2003 and 26.4.2003 but he did not join the inquiry. Apart from this, a special letter dated 24.4.2003 was also sent to the petitioner through an employee asking him to join the inquiry. Thereafter a first appearance notice was sent to him on 2.5.2003 at his residential address along with the charges and list of witnesses. It is recorded in the dismissal order that the petitioner himself received this notice and copy of list of charges and witnesses. Even thereafter repeated notices were sent to the petitioner to join the inquiry but he did not do so. Translation of the relevant part of the order of dismissal is as hereunder :- "2. The Enquiry Officer initiated this enquiry as per the regulations and conclusion of the charges along with list of witnesses of the case was prepared. That for getting joined the delinquent in the Departmental Enquiry for distributing free of cost, wireless messages were transmitted to R.I. Police Line, Mansa by the Enquiry Officer on dated 20.01.2003, 20.02.2003 and 26.04.2003 but he did not join the Departmental Enquiry. That because of the deployment of the delinquent at Police Station Sardulgarh special letter was sent on dated 24.04.2003 through an employee but due to absence the delinquent did not join the Departmental Enquiry. Whereupon first Appearance Notice No. 998/A dated 02.05.2003 was sent at the home address of the delinquent Constable Gurmej Singh No. 116/Mansa son of Kashmir Singh Jat, resident of Samja Patti, District Sirsa (Haryana) through HC Lal Singh No. 196/Mansa, Police Station Budhlada and copy of conclusion of the charges and list of witnesses of the case were also sent vide this notice. That the delinquent Constable himself received the notice and copy of the list of witnesses of the case. The delinquent Constable was asked in written vide this notice to join the Departmental Enquiry within 7 days but the delinquent did not join the Departmental Enquiry within the stipulated period. Whereupon second Notice No. 1054/B dated 10.05.2003 was sent at the home address of the delinquent in hand through HC Lal Singh No. 196/Mansa wherein the delinquent Constable was asked in written to join the Departmental Enquiry within 7 days but despite receipt of the notice the delinquent did not join the Departmental Enquiry within the stipulated period. Whereupon third Notice No. 1141/A dated 20.05.2003 was sent at the home address of the delinquent Constable through special employee. That this notice too got received by the delinquent Constable by himself but did not join the Departmental Enquiry within the stipulated period. Because of non-joining of the delinquent in the Departmental Enquiry the Enquiry Officer obtained the order for taking ex-parte action against the delinquent. Whereupon the Enquiry Officer recorded the statements of S.I. Lal Singh, Police Line, Mansa; HC Lakha Singh No. 146/Mansa, Head Clerk, Police Line, Mansa; HC Ravinder Singh No. 378/Mansa, Assistant Saina Clerk, D.P.O. Mansa and Constable Jagwant Singh No. 518/Mansa C.R.C., D.P.O. Mansa, the witnesses in the case of absence of the delinquent. 3. After closing of evidence of the witnesses of the case the Enquiry Officer by preparing the Charge- Sheet against the delinquent Constable got it approved from the competent authority. That the fourth Notice No. 1539/B dated 12.07.2003 along with the copy of approved charge sheet was sent at the home address village Samja Patti (Haryana) of the delinquent through HC Lal Singh No. 196/Mansa. That the delinquent was not found present at home. Whereupon copy of the charge-sheet and notice was received by Jaswinder wife of the delinquent. The delinquent Constable was asked in written vide this notice to join the Departmental Enquiry within 7 days and in case of not coming present it was written to complete the Departmental Enquiry. But the delinquent Constable did not join the Departmental Enquiry within the stipulated period. Whereupon the Enquiry Officer written his Conclusion Report and held him guilty. 4. The statements of witnesses of the case, conclusion report of the Enquiry Officer and evidence brought on file was minutely considered by Sh. S.S. Srivastava, I.P.S., the then S.S.P. Mansa and apart from it service record of the delinquent Constable was also considered. Who concurring with the 'Conclusion Report' of the Enquiry Officer after making up his provisional opinion 'as to why not the delinquent Constable be dismissed from Police Department for the said charges by preparing the 'Show Cause Notice' for this purpose, the same served free of cost upon the delinquent Constable vide No. 2240/Steno dated 20.08.2003 on dated 22.08.2003. Wherein it was written the delinquent Constable was asked to submit his reply in written within 10 days of the receipt of notice. But the delinquent Constable even after receipt of the notice did not submit his written reply. Thereafter, after the transfer of Shri S.S. Srivastava, I.P.S., S.S.P. Mansa; the predecessor Sh. S.K. Asthana, I.P.S. after considering the Departmental Enquiry for enabling the delinquent Constable to submit his reply in written, after preparing Notice No. 2731/S.T. dated 17.10.2003 the same was served free of cost upon the delinquent Constable Gurmej Singh No. 116/Mansa on dated 22.10.2003 wherein the delinquent was asked in written to submit his reply in written within 7 days of the receipt of notice. But the delinquent did not submit any reply in written. 5. Also after the transfer of Sh. S.K. Asthana, I.P.S. the predecessor S.S.P. Mansa, this Departmental Enquiry against the delinquent Constable Gurmej Singh No. 116/Mansa was put up before the undersigned, the same was considered minutely and an opportunity was afforded to the delinquent Constable vide Notice No. 2805/Steno dated 10.11.2003 to submit his written reply and to submit his side orally. That the delinquent Constable himself received this notice and submitted his reply in written. 6. After considering the written reply of the delinquent Constable Gurmej Singh No. 116/Mansa he was asked to appear in person before the undersigned to submit his side. Whereupon letter No. 3149/Steno dated 27.11.2003 was issued by the Line Officer, Police Lines, Mansa for appearing of the delinquent Constable in person on dated 01.12.2003 to submit his side orally. The delinquent Constable appeared in person on dated 01.12.2003 and submitted his side orally. Whatever the delinquent Constable had written in his written reply he narrated the same orally. That I do not agree with the written reply and oral submissions put forth because the delinquent Constable being a responsible employee of the police and knowing the discipline of Police Department by remaining absent without order, without leave and without permission has committed intense violation of the discipline of Police Department and has shown intense carelessness and negligence towards duty. If there was domestic problem to the delinquent Constable then he himself being a responsible employee of the Police Department should had to go after getting the leave sanctioned as per rules by coming present before the higher authorities. But he has not done so. Apart from it his old service record too was considered. That it has been observed that earlier too because of his remaining absent only during different period, his 17 years service on permanent basis and one year service on temporary basis has been got cut off, 9 censure and one warning punishments have since been given. From this it is crystal clear that the delinquent is habitual of remaining absent and there can be no hope of his getting reformed. Because in this way due to remaining absent time and again by the delinquent Constable bad effect is created on the other employees and declination is caused in the discipline of Police Department which cannot be tolerated at any cost because of which the undersigned deems it proper only to award the punishment to the delinquent Constable as proposed in the notice. Order for dismissing the delinquent Constable Gurmej Singh No. 116/Mansa from the Police Department w.e.f. 01.12.2003 after noon is passed and the period of absence of 44 days 3 hours and 25 minutes is reckoned in non duty period.";