- (1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing order dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-14) passed by respondent No. 3 - Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar dismissing the petitioner from the post of Constable on account of his proved absence from duty for a period of 161 days. It has further been prayed that a declaration be given in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents by holding that order dated 13.9.1996 (Annexure P-14) flagrantly violates Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for brevity 'the Rules').
(2.) Brief facts of the case would show that it is second round of litigation by the petitioner as would be evident from the following para. The petitioner was posted as a Constable at Police Lines, Jalandhar. He was detailed to attend the Departmental Inquiry which was pending against him with Inspector Gurbachan Singh, In-charge Police Control Room at Jalandhar on 18.6.1988 vide DDR No. 14. However, he did not return to the police lines for many months. On verification of his whereabouts it was found that the petitioner did not appear before the Inquiry Officer since 15.7.1988 and had absented himself. Accordingly, his absence was recorded in the Roznamacha Police Lines, Jalandhar vide DDR No. 17 dated 14.10.1988, whereby he was treated as absent from duty without getting the leave sanctioned. He reported back in the Police Lines, Jalandhar as recorded in DDR No. 16 dated 23.12.1988. He was charge- sheeted for absence from duty for 161 days. The charges of absence from duty without permission, were proved. The Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report on 27.3.1989 (Annexure P-1) and recorded a conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of charges levelled against him. Thereafter, a show case notice was given to the petitioner. It was pointed out in the notice dated 7.4.1989 (Annexure P-2) that on earlier three occasions he has suffered punishment and his service of three years was forfeited in the year 1987. Similarly his service for four years was forfeited during the year 1988. It was further pointed out that his service of two years had also been forfeited during the year 1988 again. The Senior Superintendent of Police came to a prima facie conclusion while issuing show-cause notice to the petitioner that the petitioner was liable to be dismissed from service. The petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice on 15.4.1989 (Annexure P-3). However, his reply was found unsatisfactory, which was, accordingly rejected. Respondent No. 3 - Senior Superintendent of Police in his order dated 27.4.1989 concluded as under : "I have gone through thoroughly the file, eye witnesses, findings of the enquiry officer and reply of the Constable Satnam Singh No. 233. If constable Satnam Singh No. 233 fell ill he should have informed the Police about his illness and got his treatment from the Govt. Hospital. I understand that this constable remained absent wilfully and is not fit for service in the Police Department. This constable joined the department on 23.7.1979 and thus he has already forfeited his 9 years service out of about 10 years of his total service. From it this is also clear that this constable has not given up his bad habits during his entire service period. Therefore, I dismiss Constable Satnam Singh No. 233 from Police Department."
(3.) The order of respondent No. 3 Senior Superintendent of Police was challenged in an appeal and the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar upheld the order.;