SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this petition challenge has been posed to the order dated 18.08.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.4 Superintendent of Police, Commando (Naval) Karnal vide which petitioner has been dismissed from service.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the petitioner had been working as Class IV employee (water career) for 16 years. When on 18.06.2007 after performing his duty, he returned home but could not join duty because of his illness. He reported back for duty on 06.11.2007. As the petitioner had remained absent from duty without any leave/ permission from 18.06.2007 to 06.11.2007 for a period of 140 days and 5 hours. Chargesheet dated 06.01.2008 was served upon him by respondent No.4 Superintendent of Police, Commando (Naval). The petitioner chose not to file any reply to the chargesheet. Therefore, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him under Rule 7 of Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1987. Statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded in the presence of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner was given an opportunity to defend himself. The petitioner chose not to produce any evidence in defence, however, submitted a written statement.

(3.) The inquiry officer considered the record and submitted his report on 08.07.2008 holding the petitioner guilty of the charge of absence from duty for 140 days and 5 hours. On considering the report of the inquiry officer and the records, a show cause notice dated 28.07.2008 was served on the petitioner as to why punishment of dismissal from service be not imposed upon him, which was received by him on 30.07.2008 along with the copy of the inquiry report. He was called upon to submit his reply within 15 days. The petitioner chose not to file any reply. Considering the inquiry report and perusing the service record of the petitioner, the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon him by the Superintendent of Police respondent No.4 vide order dated 18.08.2008. While passing the said order apart from relying upon the inquiry report, the service record of the petitioner was also considered, where it was found that he absented himself from duty on 51 occasions and an opinion was formed that the petitioner was habitual of absenting from duty willfully and this action rendered him incorrigible for retention in service. While passing the said order, the punishing authority further observed that his absence period i.e.140 days and 5 hours total 141 days be treated as without wages on the basis of 'No work no pay formula'.