Judgment:
Ajai Lamba, J.
1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 7.10.2005 (Annexure P-l) and order dated 1.12.2006 (Annexure P-3). Second prayer is that order dated 9.6.2006 (Annexure P- 2) be held to be legal and, therefore, the same be upheld.
2. A perusal of the order (Annexure P-l) indicates that the petitioner, who was serving as a Constable at Rani Ka Bagh, Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar, went absent without sanctioned leave or permission of the competent authority on 7.9.2004. He, accordingly, was marked absent on the said date and his services were placed under suspension vide order dated 21.12.2004. A departmental inquiry was ordered. The petitioner resumed duty on 1.5.2005 i.e. after an absence of 7 months and 24 days. Copy of the inquiry report has not been placed on record. Be that as it may, considering the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer holding the petitioner guilty of the charges, and relevant circumstances, Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, ordered dismissal of the petitioner from service with effect from 7.10.2005. The period of absence has been directed to be treated as non-duty period.
3. It seems that the petitioner carried an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it has been recorded that the petitioner had committed misconduct and had further shown incorrigibility and complete unfitness to continue to serve in police service. However, taking a lenient view, the punishment of dismissal has been reduced to punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service on permanent basis for annual increments.
4. The Inspector General of Police, Border Zone, Amritsar, on an appeal having been preferred by the department, revived the order of punishment imposed by the Senior Superintendent of Police and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar, whereby the punishment had been reduced, as noticed above.
5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders (Annexure P-1 and P-3). He, however, accepts the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar (Annexure P-2).
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that there was a family property dispute on account of which the petitioner could not join duty. The punishment of dismissal from service, accordingly, is harsh. Complete justice has been done by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar, by way of passing order (Annexure P-2). No other argument has been raised.
7. I have considered the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
8. It remains admitted position that the petitioner remained absent without sanctioned leave or intimation to senior officers for 7 months and 24 days in a disciplined force. It is not the case of the petitioner that due process of law and procedure was not followed. It is further not the case of the petitioner that opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner, as required by the mandate of law.
9. A perusal of the order (Annexure P-1) shows that the petitioner had been in service since 1988. Out of his total service of 17 years, due to different reasons, 20 years service had been reduced. The past conduct and antecedents of the petitioner show that he was a habitual offender and had shown no sign of an attempt to improve his conduct so as to serve the disciplined force. The reason for absence i.e. a property dispute in the family, cannot be considered to be a sufficient reason not to give prior information to the employer/senior officers or for going absent without sanctioned leave in a disciplined force.
10. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar, while dealing with the issue, has recorded in the following terms:
5. I have carefully gone through the appeal of the appellant as well as other relevant record and found that the appellant remained absent from duty on his own without any leave or permission from the competent authority. If he was having some domestic problem, he could have appeared before his senior officers to get his leave sanctioned but he did not bother about this. I have also scrutinized his previous service record and found that he was habitual of remaining absent from duty. He has again been held guilty of the same mis-conduct i.e. absence from duty, the cumulative effect of which go to prove his incorrigibility and complete unfitness of the police service. He has rightly been dismissed from service by the punishing authority and the order of punishment is legal and operative. I see no reason to differ with the punishing authority.
11. Having recorded thus, I find no reason for the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar, to have taken a lenient view. The family circumstances on account of which lenient view has been taken, have not been enumerated in the order (Annexure P-2). The assurance of the petitioner, in view of past conduct and antecedents of the petitioner, should have been considered as an irrelevant circumstance to show leniency. Out of 17 years of actual service, due to various reasons, 20 years of service had already been reduced.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the order passed by the Inspector General of Police, Border Zone, Amritsar, in upholding the order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, directing dismissal of the petitioner from service, calls for no interference.
13. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.