Ex. H.C. Munshi Ram vs The State of Haryana and Others

A.L. Bahri, J.—The short question for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the period of absence of the Petitioner after he was suspended from service is to be treated as absence from duty an allegation of charge-sheet resulting in his dismissal.

Petitioner Munshi Ram was working as a Head Constable in the Haryana Police. On 11th April, 1989 he was suspended with effect from 23rd February, 1989. He was charge-sheeted on 25th May, 1990 on the ground of deliberate absence from duty for several days, details of which are given in the charge-sheet, (Annexure P-1). This period starts from 18th September, 1988 and is up to 7th May, 1990. After the inquiry, a show-cause notice was also sent to the Petitioner on 12th June, 1990. Consequently, the order of dismissal from service was passed on 26th July, 1990 (Annexure P-4). The appeal was rejected,--vide order dated 10th October, 1990, (Annexure P-5) and further revision was rejected on March 5, 1991, (Annexure P-7), Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides the grounds for dismissal as (i) gravest acts of mis-conduct and (ii) cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness from police service. If the entire period of absence had been taken into consideration as 174 days, the order of suspension and subsequent order of dismissal passed would have been maintained. However, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ramesh Chander Chug Assistant Engineer (Civil) v. The Haryana State Electricity Board 1986 (3) SLP 1., a person, who had been suspended was not required to attend the office at his headquarters daily. In the aforesaid case, directions were given by the Chief Accounts Officer directing Ramesh Chander, who was under suspension, to attend the office at his headquarters daily, which was held to be without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision to the facts of the present case, the absence of 174 days could not be a ground for dismissal of the Petitioner. The period prior to his suspension was hardly about 46 days. It is not for this Court to adjudicate as to whether on proof of the allegation of absence of 46 days order of dismissal could be passed or not. It is for the authorities dealing with the case to pass an appropriate order of punishment if the Petitioner''s absence was for 46 days. At this stage, it may be mentioned that as per the case of the Petitioner, by calculation, this period is only 44 days. Be that as it may, since the impugned order is based on the finding that the Petitioner remained absent for 174 days, the same cannot be sustained in law. The order of dismissal of the Petitioner Annexure P-3 and the subsequent orders passed on appeal and revision Annexure P-4, P-5 and P-7, are quashed leaving the punishing authority, if so advised, to pass an appropriate order taking into consideration the period of absence prior to the order of suspension. The Petitioner will get all the benefits in consequence, of quashing the orders of dismissal, subject to the observations made, above. It is hoped that necessary benefits accruing to the Petitioner, would be made available to him within a period of six months from today and reinstatement of the Petitioner be effected forthwith. It( is left to the authorities concerned to pass an appropriate order which would have prospective effect.

The writ petition is allowed as above with no order as to costs.