Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors - CWP-4887-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 2716 (28 April 2006)


C.W.P.No.4887 of 2005

Date of Decision: 25 - 4 - 2006

Avtar Singh ........Petitioner


State of Punjab and others .........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR


Present: Mr.Sandeep Kotla, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr.B.S.Chahal, AAG, Punjab

for the respondents.


J.S.KHEHAR, J. (Oral)

On 4.4.2005, this Court while issuing notice of motion, passed the following order based on the submissions advanced by leaned counsel for the petitioner:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the punishment inflicted on the petitioner is on the higher side to the charges framed against him. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been advanced primarily keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner had rendered 11 years service and further that this was the solitary case of absence of the petitioner during his entire service career. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the aforesaid circumstances the punishment which should have been inflicted upon the petitioner is that of compulsory retirement." With regard to the stand of the petitioner, specifically the averments made in paragraph 2 of the written statement reveal that the petitioner was a CWP No.4887 of 2005 [2]

habitual absentee. Paragraph 2 of the written statement is also being extracted hereunder:-

"2. That the contents of para No.2 of the writ petition are admitted to the extent that the petitioner joined his service in the year 1991 as Constable. However, it is further submitted that the petitioner is habitual absentee, as he remained absent from duty on many occasions during a short span of service. His approved serviced for 3 years was forfeited on account of absence from duty on 22.2.1994 to 20.7.1994, total period 4 months, 27 days and 16 hours, his approved service of one year was forfeited on account of absence from duty from 25.12.1994 to 15.11.1996, total period 690 days, his approved service of 5 years was forfeited on account of absence from 1.2.1999 to 6.6.1999, total period 125 days, 2 hours and 15 minutes and 9.6.1998 to 16.6.1998 absence from duty, total period 8 days leave without pay. The above said period of absence was treated as non duty period. Apart the petitioner remained absent from duty from P.A.P. Jalandhar Cantt, Jalandhar from 13.6.1999 to 2.5.2000 total period 10 months, 29 days, 10 hours and 10 minutes. On these allegations the departmental enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found guilty for willful absence from duty and the petitioner was dismissed from service on 15.6.2002 by the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana." In view of the averments made in paragraph 2 of the written statement, we are satisfied that it is not possible to hold in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case that the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner was disproportionate in any manner.





April 25, 2006. JUDGE



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.