Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 21 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008513
CWP-18510-1998 (O & M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-18510-1998 (O & M)
Date of Decision: 21.01.2025
Lal Singh ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. Manu Gaur, Advocate,
for Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of show cause notice dated
12.04.1997, order dated 29.05.1997 whereby he was dismissed from service,
order dated 03.04.1998 whereby Appellate Authority dismissed his appeal and
order dated 22.06.1997 whereby his revision was also dismissed.
2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police as Constable on 17.04.1994.
He from 1994 to 1996 remained absent from duty on more than 20 occasions.
On 06.01.1996, he proceeded on one day leave. He claims that he remained
under treatment from 08.01.1996 to 15.03.1996 and reported for duty on
16.03.1996. He was served charge sheet. The Inquiry Officer conducted
inquiry and thereafter Disciplinary Authority ordered to dismiss him from
service. He unsuccessfully preferred appeal before Appellate Authority and
Revisional Authority.
3. Mr. Manu Gaur, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Manu K.
Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Departmental
Authorities did not consider medical certificate submitted by the petitioner. He
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008513
CWP-18510-1998 (O & M)
has been dismissed for absence from duty on one occasion which was beyond
his control. There was no other allegation in the charge sheet as well as
departmental proceedings still harsh action of dismissal from service was taken.
As per Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (in short '1934 Rules'),
punishment of dismissal from service can be awarded in case of gravest
misconduct or if competent authority comes to a conclusion that act and conduct
of Police Officer is incorrigible and he is not fit for the Police Force. He was
not served copy of inquiry report and impugned order was passed.
4. Per contra, Mr. Dhir submits that petitioner worked only for three
years and during a short span of three years, remained absent from duty on more
than 20 occasions. He was awarded punishment on different occasions but he
did not mend his behave which compelled the authorities to dismiss him from
service.
5. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. The petitioner served respondent-force for three years. From the
perusal of record, it comes out that he remained absent from duty on more than
20 occasions. He claims that he had submitted medical certificate for the
absence from duty and was not supplied copy of inquiry report, thus, he could
not properly put forth his stand. From the perusal of order of disciplinary
authority, it is evident that petitioner filed reply to show cause notice which
culminated in his termination. Though, in the show cause notice it was not
noticed that he was habitual absentee, yet in the order dated 29.05.1997, it was
noticed that employee has again absented from duty. The Disciplinary
Authority was duty bound to consider previous record of the petitioner
especially when he was habitual absentee. The petitioner is not denying the fact
that he remained absent from duty on more than 20 occasions during a short
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008513
CWP-18510-1998 (O & M)
span of three years. It is apt to notice that the period of almost three decades
from the date of order of dismissal has passed away. There was no stay in
favour of the petitioner. Thus, he except for small perio of three years, has not
served the respondent.
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 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
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008513
CWP-18510-1998 (O & M)
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 5 ½ 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 his father which would be clear from the order of
dismissal."
9. As the petitioner despite being member of disciplined Police Force
was habitual absentee and did not mend his behavior, this Court does not find it
appropriate to look into the quantum of punishment awarded to him.
10. In the wake of above facts and findings, judgment of the Apex
Court in Madan Prasad (Supra) and Division Bench Judgment of this Court in
Balwinder Singh (Supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008513
CWP-18510-1998 (O & M)
present petition being bereft of merit deserves to be dismissed and accordingly
dismissed.
11. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
21.01.2025 (JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
shivani JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking Yes
Whether reportable Yes
5 of 5
