Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satpal vs State Of Pb.Etc on 5 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051563
2024:PHHC:051563
RSA-2387-1999
-1-
206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2387-1999
Date of order:-05.04.2024
Satpal, Ex.Constable (since deceased through LRs)
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present :- Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab
for the respondents.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)
1. Plaintiff - appellant has filed the instant appeal challenging
the judgment and decree dated 27.03.1999 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur.
2. Facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the appeal are that
Satpal, plaintiff - appellant joined the Punjab Police as a Constable on
11.12.1974. He remained absent from duty from 05.04.1994 onwards
and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. It has been
pleaded that the plaintiff was getting medical treatment from his brother
Dr. Rajesh Chopra, as well as from a Government Homeopathic
Dispensary, Gurdaspur. On the basis of the findings recorded in the
enquiry, he was dismissed from service by order dated 03.10.1994,
Ex.P7 and an appeal filed by him was rejected by the Appellate
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051563
2024:PHHC:051563
RSA-2387-1999
Authority on 01.11.1994, Ex.P8. Assailing both the orders, plaintiff -
appellant filed a suit for declaration and for grant of all consequential
service benefits. Upon notice, suit was contested by the defendants -
respondents by taking various preliminary submissions. It was submitted
that the plaintiff remained absent from duty without permission and has
been dealt with departmentally for unauthorized absence from duty. On
the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and after
they led evidence, Trial Court by judgment dated 17.04.1997 decreed
the suit and declared the impugned orders as null and void and also
directed reinstatement of the plaintiff - appellant along with
consequential benefits. Appeal filed by the defendants - respondents
was accepted, judgment and decree under challenge was set aside,
resulting in the filing of the present appeal by the plaintiff - appellant.
3. Counsel for the plaintiff - appellant has argued that the
impugned order has been passed in violation of the mandatory provision
of Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules inasmuch as the Punishing
Authority has failed to record that the plaintiff - appellant is guilty of
"gravest misconduct" nor have the authorities considered the length of
service of the plaintiff - appellant before passing of the impugned
orders. Another argument raised by him is that the departmental
proceedings were held behind the back of the plaintiff - appellant and he
was never given an opportunity to appear in the proceedings nor
afforded an opportunity of hearing.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has supported the
judgment of the First Appellate Court and asserts that the procedure
established by law has been followed and the impugned orders, are in
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051563
2024:PHHC:051563
RSA-2387-1999
conformity with the Rules.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions as well as examined the Trial Court record with
their able assistance.
6. In order to appreciate the arguments raised by the counsel,
Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules deserves to be
noticed and is reproduced hereunder:-
"16.2 Dismissal. - (1) Dismissal shall be awarded only for the
gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of
continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete
unfitness for police service. In making such an award regard shall
be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to
pension."
7. An examination of the above reproduced Sub - Rule shows
that it provides for dismissal from service for gravest acts of misconduct
or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving
incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. Under the
former part of the Sub - Rule, gravest acts of misconduct entail
dismissal, whereas under the latter part of the Sub - Rule, it is the
cumulative effect of continued misconduct, which invites the
punishment of dismissal. In both the cases, incorrigibility of the
delinquent official and complete unfitness for police service has to be
established. Simultaneously, the Punishing Authority is required to take
into consideration the length of service of the delinquent official and his
claim to pension.
8. Impugned order dated 03.10.1994 (Ex.P7) passed by the
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051563
2024:PHHC:051563
RSA-2387-1999
Punishing authority dismissing the plaintiff - appellant from service has
been analysed. It is evident from a perusal of the succinct order, Ex.P7
that the Punishing Authority has noticed that the plaintiff - appellant
had joined the service in 1974 and has been imposed punishments six
times for dereliction in duty. On the basis of his past service record, the
Punishing Authority came to the conclusion that he is a habitual
absentee and is not fit to be retained in police service. It is, therefore,
clear that not only the continued misconduct has been taken into account
but also the service rendered by him has been considered by the
Punishing Authority while passing the order, Ex.P7. Counsel for the
plaintiff - appellant is, therefore not correct in urging that the order does
not meet the mandate of Rule 16.2.(1), ibid.
9. Coming to the next argument of the counsel for the plaintiff
- appellant, it is true that Order, Annexure P7 does not mention the
expression 'gravest misconduct', but the Punishing Authority has
considered his service record to arrive at the conclusion that there has
been continued misconduct, which shows his incorrigibility and
unsuitability for being kept in police service. It is not imperative for the
punishing authority to use the phrase "gravest misconduct" while
passing the order of dismissal. It has been held by the Supreme Court in
State of Punjab and others Versus Sukhwinder Singh (2007) 10 SCC
511 as under:
"6. That the order of dismissal did not use the "mantra" of
"gravest act of misconduct" is not determinative. The substance
of that conclusion is to be found in that order. When a policeman
is repeatedly absent from duty, it cannot but be reasonably
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051563
2024:PHHC:051563
RSA-2387-1999
concluded that there is incorrigibility in his continued
misconduct"
10. In their evidence, the defendants - respondents have
produced the Character Roll, Ex.D1 of the plaintiff - appellant. Besides
being placed under suspension on various occasions, he has been
departmentally proceeded against and following punishments have been
imposed upon him:
(i) in the year 1987, five year service was forfeited as he was
found to be under the influence of liquor during duty hours;
(ii) in the year 1994, three year service was forfeited for the
same reason;
(iii) from 17.01.1994 to 05.02.1994, plaintiff - appellant
remained absent from duty and two year service was forfeited;
(iv) again from 04.03.1994 to 31.03.1994, plaintiff - appellant
was absent from duty and two year service was forfeited for
remaining absent; and
(v) plaintiff - appellant was granted 30 days leave for
remaining absent from duty on different from dates.
11. The argument of the counsel for the plaintiff - appellant
that he has not been given an opportunity of hearing before the passing
of the impugned orders is all in vain. It is evident from the Enquiry File,
Ex.D1, that plaintiff - appellant did not associate with the departmental
proceedings, and he was proceeded against ex-parte, culminating in the
passing of the dismissal order. Counsel for the plaintiff - appellant,
therefore cannot urge that the disciplinary proceedings have been held in
breach of the principles of natural justice.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051563
2024:PHHC:051563
RSA-2387-1999
12. Plaintiff - appellant has taken a plea that he was unwell and
has used his treatment as a pretext for remaining absent from duty and
has produced medical certificates Mark A1 to A3. However, the three
medical certificates were neither proved nor exhibited before the Trial
Court. Plaintiff also failed to lead any evidence to support his version.
Certificates Mark A1 to A3 show that on two occasions, he was under
treatment of Dr. Rajesh Chopra, who was none other than his own
brother. It is, therefore, clear that the plea taken by the plaintiff -
appellant is flimsy and does not deserve any consideration. Plaintiff -
appellant was a Constable in the police force and his repeated absence
from duty, was unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force.
13. This Court, therefore, does not find any ground to interfere
with the well-reasoned finding recorded by the First Appellate Court,
which deserves to be upheld.
14. As the appeal lacks merit, it is hereby dismissed with no
order as to costs.
15. Pending application (s), if any, stand disposed of.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
05.04.2024 JUDGE
Brij
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
