Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) State Of Punjab And Others vs Baldev Raj on 19 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052807
RSA-1140-1999 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:052807
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
201 RSA-1140-1999 (O&M)
Date of Decision :19.04.2024
State of Punjab and others ...Appellants
Versus
Baldev Raj ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab for the appellant-State.
Mr. Arjun Dev, Advocate for Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate
for the respondent.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. In the present regular second appeal, challenge is to judgment
and decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 18.07.1998 by which,
judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 13.02.1995 by which, suit filed
by the respondent-plaintiff was dismissed, has been set aside and the order
of punishment imposed upon the respondent-plaintiff as well as order passed
in the departmental appeal has been set aside with a direction to pass a fresh
order by keeping in mind Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that in the
present case respondent-plaintiff, who was a police officer remained absent
from duty unauthorizedly and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Civil Appeal No.9997-1995, titled as, State of UP vs.
Ashok Kumar Singh decided on 10.11.1995 absence from duty qua police
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052807
RSA-1140-1999 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:052807
officer is a grave misconduct and once, grave misconduct is committed by
such police officer and proved, benefit of Section 16.2 of the Punjab Police
Rules, 1934 could not have been given.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that same
question of law has already been raised before this Court in RSA-2247 of
1995 titled as, Balbir Singh vs. State of Haryana, decided on 10.04.2024
which has been considered by this Court wherein, the said claim raised by
the officer concerned has been dismissed by both the Courts below and the
said claim has also been rejected by this Court and hence, question of law
raised in the present regular second appeal is also covered by the decision of
this Court in Balbir Singh (supra). Relevant paragraph of the judgment is as
under:-
"11. It may be noticed that the High Court had interfered
with the quantum of punishment in the case of Ashok
Kumar ( supra ) , which was held to be bad by Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India keeping in view the fact that a
police Officer remained unauthorizedly absent and no
interference is called for when misconduct is grave in
nature. Keeping in view the said judgment, once the
appellant was held guilty of grave misconduct, and for the
said misconduct itself, the punishment of dismissal can be
imposed, the argument that the length of service of the
appellant has not been kept in mind, keeping in view Rule
16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, will not come to the
rescue of the appellant. Where an employee has
committed a grave misconduct, action needs to be taken
keeping in view the gravity of misconduct and not on the
basis of length of service. Only interpretation which can
be given to Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 is that
when an employee is not guilty of grave misconduct,
length of service will come into operation, but in case of
grave misconduct proved against an employee, past
service becomes immaterial, otherwise, an employee who
is not interested in performing the duties, will absent
himself/herself from duty to get pensionary benefit rather
than resigning, as resignation from service forfeit all the
benefits. Hence, the argument that due consideration
should be given to length of service of the appellant i.e.
15 years of service while imposing the punishment order
keeping in view Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934
cannot come to the rescue of the appellant so as to seek
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052807
RSA-1140-1999 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:052807
modification of order of punishment as awarded by the
competent authority."
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to
distinguish that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Ashok Kumar Singh (supra), absence from duty qua police official is a
grave misconduct and by considering unauthorized absence from duty as
grave misconduct this Court has already declined the benefit of Rule 16.2 of
the Punjab Police Rule, 1934 so as to award lesser punishment by holding
that punishment qua grave misconduct is to be seen keeping in view the
gravity of the misconduct and not from the length of service in the case of
Balbir Singh (supra).
5. Hence, keeping in view the settled principle of law settled by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ashok Kumar Singh (supra) as well
as judgment of this Court in Balbir Singh (supra), judgment and decree of
the lower Appellate Court dated 18.07.1998 is set aside and judgment and
decree of the trial Court dated 13.02.1995 is restored and the suit filed by
the respondent is dismissed.
6. Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any is also disposed
of.
April 19, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
