- (1.) Ex-Constable Harvinder Singh No. 1111/R has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing show-cause notice dated Nil (Annexure P-1), proposing therein dismissal of the petitioner from service, order dated 22.6.2005 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rupnagar, dismissing the petitioner from service, order dated 31.8.2005 (Annexure P-5) passed by DIG Police Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 22.6.2005, order dated 10.4.2006 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Inspector General of Police, Patiala Zone, Patiala, rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner, and order dated 6.6.2007 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Director General of Police, dismissing the appeal-cum-mercy petition filed by the petitioner and also for a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service from the date of termination with all consequential benefits.
(2.) Briefly the facts pleaded in the writ petition are that the petitioner had joined Punjab Police as a Constable on 22.4.1992 at Ludhiana. He absented from duty from 30.9.2004 to 10.12.2004 for a period of 2 months and 11 days while posted at Police Lines, Rupnagar. A departmental enquiry was conducted against him for his wilful absence from duty which was proved. So notice dated Nil (Annexure P-1) for his dismissal from service was issued to which he replied on 31.5.2005 vide Annexure P-2. On 22.6.2005, S.S.P., Ropar, passed the order of dismissal which was challenged by petitioner in appeal before the D.I.G., Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana, but the same was dismissed on 31.8.2005. The petitioner had further filed revision under Rule 16.28 read with Rule 16.32 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short, 'the Rules') to the Inspector General, Police which too was dismissed on 10.4.2006. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a mercy petition to the Director General Police, (respondent No. 2), which also met the same fate vide order dated 6.6.2007 (Annexure P-7).
(3.) The petitioner alleged that he had explained his absence on the ground that he was ill and also his younger brother had died but the authorities did not take into consideration these compelling circumstances and passed the order of dismissal, although his absence was not intentional and had been caused due to the family circumstances. He also objected to the enquiry proceedings and alleged that other employees who were similarly absent from duty have been reinstated even after their dismissal from service.;