Sunita Devi v. State Of Haryana And Others


   

         

 !"#$"%&'&#()
*+
+

 
 

  
 




 

   

)  ,-

+ . 

.-

  
  
   




! 
  


" #
 $ %



     &


'

 ((((


.-/+

- ) The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders passed by departmental authorities whereby her husband has been awarded punishment of dismissal from service. 2.

  
   





 
* +


   

+ 




  
 #

  

#

,


 
+



+ 3.

The petitioner's husband (hereinafter referred to as 'Employee') joined Police Force as Constable on 31.08.1992. He was never promoted. In 2018, the respondent initiated departmental inquiry against him alleging that he remained absent from duty from 07.01.2018 to 07.08.2018 (total 212 days). The inquiry officer found him guilty of alleged misconduct.


 4.

The disciplinary authority issued him show cause notice dated 25.10.2018 proposing punishment of dismissal from service. Superintendent of Police (SP), Jhajjar vide order dated 03.12.2018 awarded him punishment of dismissal from service. He preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by Appellate Authority vide order dated 04.04.2019. He preferred revision. He passed away during the pendency of revision. The Director General of Police (DGP) vide order dated 14.10.2020 dismissed his revision.

5.

Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that punishment awarded by authorities is disproportionate to alleged misconduct. The employee had 27 years' service to his credit at the time of passing of impugned order. He was dismissed on the ground of absence from duty. He was not involved in any criminal activity. His conduct by no stretch of imagination could be called as gravest mis-conduct. The impugned order was in the teeth of Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (in short 'PPR'). 6.

Learned State counsel reiterates findings of the departmental authorities and submits that no interference is warranted. The employee belongs to a disciplined force, thus, his conduct must be above board. He is bound to maintain high standards of discipline. 7.

Heard the arguments and perused the record.

8.

-
   

+,#

,+  .
  
# 
,

 
,  #
 #*+

,+ 
 
 
 +
 


+

*
, 

-
#, 


   
 

*
/, 


+#

+
)0 1




   

* +



0


 

 

       

   

   

   

  

    



      



      

      

   !"

 # $ 

    #

 %  

 

% 

%       

  



       % 

 

 

&



 

 

 '

  

 

       



'





'







 

 '

    

   (           % 

%

%





'

  

 

  '

       ) ' 



    

 * 

      + 

    

   "

      

     % 

%

   ,

 

   %     * 

       



   



  %  %     

    "

  %  %   

  -  ./   0  0 

 1     

           

       

   



   $

 

 

   



  

     

          %     

    

 



     

1    

 

       

 

 

     

2 3 4        + 

    %   

 

 

, %

 ,    

  %     

 

 



 1 ) (

   

                  

#

 % 

  

% 



   

   % 

   

1 ) (5

*+
")%

+
)0 1


  

,+
++
*
  
+
 

# 


, 


,+
 
 
, 
 #
 #*+


,+ 
 
 
 +
 
3/+ 
   



  
# 
,
 
 ,+ 
*
/+ 

*+
")%
,
 
+
,+
  #
# #
+
, #
 ++

 + , 
4 


   +
 

+
*
*!  

 , +
  #

,
*
*!  

, 

,+
*+
"1%
 ,+ 

   
  

 +
 
,
*
, 
 ,
 
5
  


 ++ 
 +
 
   
!++
 #  
, , 
/ #

, 
+ 
  

6 


 +

 
*
, 

5
 

 +
*
# 

  

+ 

  
 
/ 
 ,

 +
 
5
6,

  
  
*


+ 

  
#


,+
, , 

&

  
*
,+

+
 
   
  
 
 ,
 

 

 
, 

)7 -
   

# 
 
* #
, +
 

 
+  
 
 , 
 

  
 ,
78 7) 17)9
 17)9
" +
1)1
%


, 
 
 
* 
 ,



 


+ 


,+




#

*
/, 


+#

+
)0 1")%


 
 
++


,*

/+ 

+
)0 1")%
-
   

 *
#+

,



,# 
 

 
 

,+#

,

+
)0 1")%
-
+
 


 

+ #

  

+ , 

 
-
 
 

 
 
#


 


* 
 ,


# 
, 
 #*+
-
,# 
 



+
)0 1")% ))


- 

  
,

 

*
+

& 


-
 , +
6

,* 

+
)0 1:


$+
"

%

+
)0 1:")%
  


 
,
*
 + 
 *! 
  
 * 
  
+
)0 1:")%"

%
 


 

  

     #  6 

   

  

  

 

,  7

  888 888 888 888 

 6,   



 

, 



  %

 %    

      

      

 4 

 

          

           

  % 

  

 

 ' 

          



  

 



  

 



 "

   

    6 "

       

 

  

     

  

5
 )1


 
+
)0 1:")%"

%



+
 
,
 

  
 


 +6 
,+


  

* 
  

 +6 
,+ 

 
  
 

 

# #

 +

-
+

 
, 
,
 ,
  

 

 ,#
* 

 
 ,
-
 
 + 
 


  
 

 
,+#

,

+
)0 1:")%"

%

     

*




+

);

5


 + 
   
+

, 
 +
*

,, 

++ # 
 
-
+

   +
 +
*
 ++


*
++
6
!+

!+
  
+
 #
, 
   

  
 
+
   + 
, 
 * 
*
+ #+ 
,
*

,, 

++ # 
 
5
, 

   
 ++ # 
 


+ +
):


$  
5

):

5
     

    !  "## $%  ,
$ 

 
 
:

< 1777
   

   

+


++  

=
& 
$  
$

5

   


 
,  
# 
 #

, 


 +
 
 



, 
-
6  
  
*  



  

#
, 

  


 

 


++&


+ 

+   

, 
 6 

* 
 
 
-
$ 

#+# 
   +



 +
  )< 5
&'( )  " 

 * '  

'

 +%$!  "##

 /
$ 
 +


 +


   


# 

,

+
*
+ +
):


$  
5
-
 + 
/


!#, 
 

9 ,

   



 



   

%  



    



 

*

):
0  
 )0


5




he employee herein joined service in 1992 and was dismissed from service vide order dated 03.12.2018. The order of dismissal was passed on account of absence from duty for 212 days. In the notice proposing punishment, there was no reference of his past record, however, Disciplinary Authority while passing dismissal order noticed that he was habitual absentee. He submitted before authorities that his wife is suffering from mental illness. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the employee was suffering from Cancer and passed away during the pendency of revision. He was less than 55 years old at the time of death. His son is also mentally challenged.

  

  
6,

, 
-


 ,+


, 
#

*
 , 

  

  
6,


, 
-
,+ 

 
 


$ 
 
 


 

 ,

, 
*&

 , +
  

  

, 

 
 
 ,



++ # 
 

+ 
 
 
-
  

 
,# 
 
, ++

 

++
 *+ 

 ,

+
,++

+#
-


 

+# 

 #

++ # 
,

$ 
 ,

 

, 

, 
,+
 
 ,+ 
  , 
-
,+ 
++
*
 , 

*
,+ +
  

7;

)1 17)9




,+
 
  
*
   


+
*
+ 

 

7) 7;

-
   

+ 

#

+  , 
"
%

++
 
*
+ 

+

  
 


  
-
   
++
 + 
#
+ 
, 
"
%

  

, 
 ,
 
+#


+
*
+*+


  
>
2?
 
,


/


   )9 , -


*
 ,  )2

#
+ "%


++
+

  



.-
  

*+
+

 Prince Chawla @  
 &#=   
A =B @  
  *+
A =B