[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanyogita vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 1 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
208 CWP-22757-2018
Date of Decision: 01.12.2025
SANYOGITA ...Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. Akash Sheoran, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, DAG Haryana
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order
dated 17.08.2001 (Annexure P-3) whereby her husband was dismissed
from service. She is further seeking direction to respondent to release
pension and other benefits of her husband.
2. The petitioner's husband joined Haryana Police Force as
Constable on 12.10.1989. She claims that her husband fell ill in 2000. He
was suffering from mental disorder. Due to illness, on 25.01.2000 he sent
application for premature retirement. The respondent recorded his
absence in DDR No.38 dated 30.06.2000. He reported back on
10.02.2001 despite illness. The respondent conducted departmental
inquiry for his absence from duty for 7 months and 10 days. The Inquiry
Officer found him guilty of alleged misconduct. The Disciplinary
1 of 6
Authority awarded him punishment of dismissal from service. He
preferred an appeal before IGP, Gurugram who vide order dated
10.06.2002 dismissed the same. He preferred revision which came to be
rejected vide order dated 30.10.2002 passed by DGP.
3. As per reply filed by State, the petitioner's husband was a
habitual absentee. He remained absent for 378 days during his 11 years
service. He was awarded following punishments:-
a) Censure vide order dated 31.01.1994 for absence from duty.
b) Censure vide order book No. 144/96 for absence from duty.
c) Censure vide order book No.237 / 96 for negligence in duty.
d) Censure vide order book No. 150/96.
e) Stoppage of 5 future annual increments with permanent
effect vide order dated 12.02.2001 for absenting himself 2
months 20 days.
f) Stoppage of 5 future annual increments with permanent
effect vide order dated 12.02.2001 for absenting himself 52
days.
g) Dismissal from services vide order dated 17.08.2001 for
absenting himself 225 days.
4. In view of his absence period and punishments, he was not
having qualifying service to his credit for pension and other benefits.
2 of 6
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's
husband was suffering from mental illness. On account of illness, he
could not perform his duty as a normal police official. He was requesting
respondent to grant him retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme
(for short 'VRS').
6. The employee was having about 10 years' service and was
not eligible for VRS. His claim was not covered by Rule 9.18 of Punjab
Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (in short 'PPR').
In any case, no order on his application for VRS was passed and he has
not pointed out any Rule which provides for admission of application
seeking VRS just after completing 10 years' service.
7. Supreme Court in "Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of
India and others", (2023) 9 SCC 100 while adverting to disciplinary
action in case of absence from duty has held that the Court should not set
aside order of dismissal where delinquent is part of Armed Forces and
remained absent from duty. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:
"11. It is apparent from the above table that the appellant
was a habitual offender. There were four red ink entries
and one black ink entry against him before the present
incident cited at Serial No. (f) above. Such gross
indiscipline on the part of the appellant who was a
member of the Armed Forces could not be countenanced.
He remained out of line far too often for seeking
condonation of his absence of leave, this time, for a
prolonged period of 108 days which if accepted, would
have sent a wrong signal to others in service. One must be
mindful of the fact that discipline is the implicit hallmark
of the Armed Forces and a non-negotiable condition of
3 of 6
service.
XXXX XXXX XXXX
18. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any infirmity
in the impugned judgment Madan Prasad v. Union of
India, 2015 SCC OnLine AFT 887 passed by the AFT. The
appellant had been taking too many liberties during his
service and despite several punishments awarded to him
earlier, ranging from imposition of fine to rigorous
imprisonment, he did not mend his ways. This was his sixth
infraction for the very same offence. Therefore, he did not
deserve any leniency by infliction of a punishment lesser
than that which has been awarded to him."
8. A Division Bench of this Court while dealing with similar
issue in "Balwinder Singh versus State of Punjab and others", (LPA-
934-2023, decided on 21.02.2024), has held that act of remaining absent
from duty for a man in uniform is a gravest act of misconduct. The
relevant extracts of the judgment read as:
"That a man in uniform has to maintain greater discipline
and the act of remaining absent from duty is a gravest act
of misconduct. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment
in State of Punjab & others Vs. Mohinder Singh, 2005 (12)
SCC 182 wherein the Apex Court allowed the appeal by
noticing that there was absence of 5½ months and it was
reprehensible conduct by the Constable. The basic
principle which has been time and again laid down is that
remaining absent from duty after the sanctioned leave by a
uniformed personnel is fatal. Keeping in view the fact that
the appellant voluntarily kept away from his duties which
were very much required by his department and the fact
that the matter was duly enquired upon. Copy of the notice
was sent to his foreign address through registered post to
which he had not replied and also copy had been sent to
4 of 6
his father which would be clear from the order of
dismissal."
9. Scope of interference while exercising jurisdiction under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary proceedings
is very limited. The Court has no power to look into quantum of
punishment unless and until it finds that awarded punishment is
disproportionate to alleged offence. It is further settled proposition of law
that High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
Constitution of India can look into the procedure followed by authorities.
In case, it is found that enquiry officer or disciplinary authority has not
considered any evidence on record or misread the evidence or procedure
as prescribed by law has not been followed, the Court can interfere. A two
judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Union of India and others v.
Subrata Nath", 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1617 while adverting to scope of
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary
proceedings has held that departmental authorities are fact finding
authorities. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during
the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to
impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in
mind the gravity of the misconduct. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
considered its judicial precedents including a two-judge Bench judgment
in "Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran" (2015) 2 SCC 610.
10. In the instant case, the authorities have duly followed
prescribed procedure. There is proper appreciation of evidence on record.
The employee despite being member of disciplined Police Force was a
5 of 6
habitual absentee. He did not mend his behaviour in spite of being
subjected to punishment on multiple occasions. In these facts and
circumstances, this Court does not find it appropriate either to interfere
with findings of authorities or look into quantum of punishment awarded
to him
11. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed
and accordingly dismissed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
December 01, 2025
Deepak DPA
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
