Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daljit Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 7 November, 2025
Author: Anupinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal
LPA No. 193 of 2025 (O&M) -1-
121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 193 of 2025 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 07.11.2025
DALJIT SINGH
......APPELLANT
Vs.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
.........RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL
Present: Mr. Amandeep Saini, Advocate,
for the applicant-appellant.
Mr. Aftab Singh Khara, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab.
*****
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.(ORAL)
CM No. 444 of 2025
This application is for condoning the delay of 05 days in
refiling the appeal.
After going through the contents of the application and having
heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, the delay of 05 days in
re-filing the appeal is condoned and the application stands allowed.
The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the
appellant challenging the judgment passed by the learned Single Bench
whereby the petition filed by the appellant seeking setting aside of the
order dated 31.08.1995 (Annexure P-2), whereby he was dismissed from
service, has been rejected.
1 of 4
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the earlier
absence of the appellant was erroneously taken into account by the
respondents while passing the impugned order of dismissal dated
31.08.1995. The appellant was not afforded adequate opportunity to defend
the charges levelled against him.
3. Heard.
4. The appellant is stated to have joined as a Constable in Punjab
Police on 06.04.1986. He had absented from duty without authorized leave
w.e.f. 01.12.1992 to 22.02.1993. Departmental proceedings were initiated
against him but he did not join the enquiry and was subsequently dismissed
from service on 05.03.1994. He challenged the order of dismissal by
preferring Civil Writ Petition No. 6597-1994, whereby the dismissal order
dated 05.03.1994 was set aside and the appellant was ordered to be
reinstated in the meantime only on the ground that the notice had not been
personally served upon him. However, liberty was granted to the competent
authority to conduct a fresh enquiry and it was held that it shall not
preclude the competent authority from passing a fresh order in accordance
with law following the principles of natural justice. The appellant was
taken back on duty and thereafter the respondents had issued a fresh show-
cause notice to him yet again he absented himself from duty and did not
respond thereto or join enquiry. The competent authority consequently
passed the order of dismissal on 31.08.1995 (Annexure P-2). The appellant
challenged the dismissal order dated 31.08.1995 before the Single Bench
only in the year 1999 by filing writ petition bearing No. 17538 of 1999.
The Single Bench by the impugned order dismissed his petition observing
2 of 4
that unauthorised absence from duty amounts to grave misconduct and thus
dismissal from service is justified.
5. It is trite that absence from duty by a police personnel
constitutes a serious act of misconduct, warranting dismissal from service.
Reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ex Sepoy
Madan Prasad vs. Union of India and others, (2023) 9 SCC 100.The
relevant extract thereof is reproduced as under:-
"10. 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 number (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 xxxx
17. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find
any infirmity in the impugned judgment 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."
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
3 of 4
6. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge upholding the appellant's
dismissal from service. Consequently, the LPA being devoid of any merit,
stands dismissed.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 07, 2025 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)
nitin JUDGE
Whether Speaking Yes
Whether Reportable No
4 of 4
