Court dismissed a writ petition against dismissal from service of a police constable for habitual absenteeism after enquiry. No interference permitted as punishment was valid and no pension qualified. Relieved of GPF arrears only.
Released of GPF arrears if any within 3 months
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.16151 of 2008 Date of Decision : April 21, 2010.
Baldev Singh
..... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Mr.Peeush Gagneja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
(Oral) Surya Kant, J.
The petitioner who joined as a Constable in the Punjab Police on 10.4.1992, was charge-sheeted for having remained absent from duty for 81 days and three hours. On enquiry, the allegations were proved and based on that enquiry report, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur dismissed him from service. The appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner have also met with the same fate.
Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and
gone through the records.
It is indeed not in dispute that earlier also the petitioner was
C.W.P.No .16151 of 2008 2
held guilty of remaining absent from duty for more than one occasions though at that time lesser punishments were imposed upon him by the department but the petitioner did not mend his ways and appears to have become a habitual absentee.
In these circumstances especially when the petitioner is a member of the disciplined force, the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on him warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
It may also be noticed here that the total service rendered by the petitioner before his dismissal did not qualify for pension, therefore also the impugned order does not call for any interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
However, the respondents are directed that in case any arrears of G.P.F. etc, for which the petitioner is entitled to, are yet to be released, the same be released to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
Dasti.
April 21, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether dismissal from service of a police constable for habitual absenteeism warrants writ jurisdiction interference.
Whether dismissal in circumstances where total service did not qualify for pension calls for interference.
Baldev Singh
State of Punjab
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
