Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurbir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 27 April, 2026
CWP No.15119 of 2018(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.15119 of 2018(O&M)
Reserved on: 08.04.2026
Date of Pronouncement:27.04.2026
Uploaded on: 27.04.2026
Gurbir Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH
NALWA
*****
Present: Mr. Lajwant Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab.
DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA, J. (Oral)
1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged
the order dated 17.12.2015 (Annexure P-6), passed by Commandant
Forth, IRB, Jalandhar (camp at Kapurthala) vide which petitioner has
been dismissed from service. The petitioner has also challenged the
subsequent orders passed by the Higher Authorities, vide which the
aforesaid order of dismissal dated 17.12.2015 (Annexure P-6) has been
upheld.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was
appointed as a Constable on 10.12.2002 in the Police Department under
the sports category, being an international-level wrestler. First
Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) No.108 dated 10.08.2012 was
registered against the petitioner under Sections 498-A and 328 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Lambi, District Sri Muktsar
Sahib. The elder brother of the petitioner expired on 07.06.2014
DIWAKER GULATI
2026.04.27 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-1-
CWP No.15119 of 2018(O&M)
(Annexure P-2). It transpires that the petitioner was acquitted in the
said FIR No.108, vide judgment dated 08.06.2015 (Annexure P-3)
passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib. According to
the petitioner, due to the registration of the said FIR and the demise of
his elder brother, he went into depression and, consequently, could not
attend his duties. The petitioner remained absent from duty w.e.f.
08.06.2015 to 02.09.2015 without obtaining prior sanction of leave. A
charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on account of unauthorized
absence from duty commencing from 08.06.2015. The petitioner duly
submitted his reply to the charge-sheet; however, the same was not
found to be satisfactory. Consequently, a departmental enquiry was
initiated. The petitioner duly participated in the enquiry proceedings.
Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report. In the enquiry report
(Annexure P-5), the charge of unauthorized absence stood proved. The
punishing authority accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and
vide order dated 17.12.2015 (Annexure P-6) passed by Commandant
Forth, IRB, Jalandhar (camp at Kapurthala), the petitioner was
dismissed from service. Aggrieved against the abovementioned order,
the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected vide order dated
01.07.2016 (Annexure P-7). Thereafter, a revision petition was filed by
the petitioner against the abovementioned order dated 01.07.2016
(Annexure P-7), which was also dismissed vide order dated 13.10.2016
(Annexure P-8). The petitioner filed a petition before the Additional
Director General of Police, Armed Battalion, Punjab, against the
dismissal order dated 17.12.2015 (Annexure P-6) which was also
DIWAKER GULATI
2026.04.27 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-2-
CWP No.15119 of 2018(O&M)
dismissed on 09.02.2017 (Annexure P-9) on the ground of
maintainability. The petitioner thereafter filed a petition before the
Director General of Police against the order of dismissal dated
17.12.2015 (Annexure P-6), but the same was also dismissed vide order
dated 01.12.2017 (Annexure P-10). Aggrieved against the order dated
17.12.2015 (Annexure P-6) vide which the petitioner was dismissed
from service and the subsequent orders passed by the Higher
Authorities, whereby the abovesaid order of dismissal dated 17.12.2015
(Annexure P-6) has been upheld, the petitioner has filed the present
writ petition challenging the said orders.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
due to the registration of the FIR by his wife in which he was
ultimately acquitted and the death of his brother, the petitioner suffered
from depression and was unable to report for duty. He submits that his
absence was neither willful nor deliberate but was beyond his control.
He further submits that the impugned order of dismissal dated
17.12.2015 (Annexure P-6) does not mention that the act of misconduct
on the part of petitioner amounts to the “gravest act of misconduct”, as
such, as per Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, the said order
is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the past service record
of the petitioner was also taken into consideration without issuing any
show cause notice in that regard, as such, the order of dismissal dated
17.12.2015 (Annexure P-6) is liable to be set aside. Lastly, it is
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment of
dismissal is harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the
DIWAKER GULATI
2026.04.27 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-3-
CWP No.15119 of 2018(O&M)
misconduct, as such, on this ground also, the impugned orders are
liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the
petitioner remained absent from duty for 86 days and 05 hours without
getting his leave sanctioned. He submits that in a disciplined force like
the Police Department, such absence constitutes a gravest act of
misconduct. He further submits that the petitioner failed to produce any
material to establish that his absence was not willful or was beyond his
control. He also submits that the petitioner is a habitual absentee. Even
after remaining absent for 86 days 05 hours for the period commencing
08.06.2015 to 02.09.2015, he again remained absent, after the initiation
of departmental proceedings and during the pendency of the
departmental proceedings, for 43 days on various occasions. He
submits that service record of the petitioner reveals that 11 years of his
service has been forfeited on permanent basis; he has been censured
twice; he has been punished with drill once, and 310 days have been
treated as non-duty period. Taking into consideration the abovesaid
facts, he submits that the impugned orders are legal and justified, as
such, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the record.
7. For adjudication of the present controversy, it is apposite
to reproduce Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Volume II, as
applicable in the case of petitioner:-
“16.2. Dismissal. (1) Dismissal shall be awarded only for
DIWAKER GULATI the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect
2026.04.27 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-4-
CWP No.15119 of 2018(O&M)or 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.
Explanation.- For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the
following shall, inter alia, be regarded as gravest acts of
misconduct in respect of a police officer, facing
disciplinary action:
(i) indulging in spying or smuggling activities;
(ii) disrupting the means of transport or of
communication;
(iii) damaging public property;
(iv) causing indiscipline amongst fellow
policemen;
(v) promoting feeling of enmity or hatred
between different classes of citizens of India
on grounds of religion, race, caste,
community or language;
(vi) going on strike or mass casual leave or
resorting to mass abstentions;
(vii) spreading disaffection against the
Government; and
(viii) causing riots and the like
(2) An enrolled police officer sentenced judicially
to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month or to
any other punishment not less severe, shall, if such
sentence is not quashed on appeal or revision, be
dismissed. An enrolled police officer sentenced by a
criminal court to a punishment of fine or simple
imprisonment, or both, or to rigorous imprisonment
not exceeding one month, or who, having been
proclaimed under Section 87 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure fails to appear within the
DIWAKER GULATI statutory period of thirty days may be dismissed or
2026.04.27 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-5-
CWP No.15119 of 2018(O&M)otherwise dealt with at the discretion of the officer
empowered to appoint him. Final departmental
orders in such cases shall be postponed until the
appeal or revision proceedings have been decided,
or until the period allowed for filing an appeal has
lapsed without appellate or revisionary proceedings
having been instituted. Departmental punishments
under this rule shall be awarded in accordance with
the powers conferred by rule 16/1.
(3) When a police officer is convicted judicially and
dismissed, or dismissed as a result of a departmental
inquiry, in consequence of corrupt practices, the
conviction and dismissal and its cause shall be published
in the Police Gazette. In other cases of dismissal when it
is desired to ensure that the officer dismissed shall not be
re-employed elsewhere, a full description roll, with
particulars of the punishments, shall be sent for
publication in the Police Gazette.”
8. A perusal of the abovesaid Rule would show that as per
Sub Rule (1) of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, it
provides that 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. It
further provides that while passing the order of dismissal, due regard
has to be given to the length of service and claim to pension.
9. In regard to the contention raised by learned counsel for
the petitioner that the impugned order does not expressly mention that
the act of misconduct on the part of petitioner constitutes the “gravest
DIWAKER GULATI act of misconduct,”, as such, in light of sub-rule (1) of Rule 16.2 of the
2026.04.27 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-6-
CWP No.15119 of 2018(O&M)
Punjab Police Rules, 1934, the impugned orders are liable to be set
aside. In regard to the said contention, it is well settled that
unauthorized absence from duty in a disciplined force, by its very
nature, amounts to gravest act of misconduct. Mere non-mention of the
specific expression/words in the order of dismissal does not render the
order invalid.
10. A similar issue came up for consideration before this
Court in RSA No.4475 of 2001 titled as Gurtej Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and others, decided on 21.02.2005. In the said case, appellant
therein was working in the Police Department and remained absent
from duty for 38 days. It was held that even where such words ‘gravest
act of misconduct’ have not been mentioned, in the order of dismissal,
the said order of dismissal may not be void. The relevant extract from
the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“10. No doubt, as laid down in Rule 16.2 of the Rules,
order of dismissal could be justified only if it was for
“gravest act of misconduct” or “for cumulative effect of
continuous misconduct proving incorrigibility and
complete unfitness for police service”. This requirement
is a usual requirement for punishment of dismissal but
still the question is whether the words “gravest acts of
misconduct” or “cumulative effect”, debar an order of
dismissal for proved misconduct either, when series of
misconducts are not mentioned or when the words of the
rule are not reproduced in the order of dismissal, as
appears to be the submission on behalf of the appellant,
which is also supported by earlier decisions of this Court.
On a close examination of law on the subject, the
contention raised on behalf of the appellant cannot be
DIWAKER GULATI
2026.04.27 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-7-
CWP No.15119 of 2018(O&M)upheld. Even where such words are not mentioned in the
order of dismissal, order of dismissal may not be void on
that account unless it is found that the misconduct was
trivial in nature or was not “gravest” or of such a nature
which can be termed as continuous misconduct proving
incorrigibility. To ascertain whether misconduct is
gravest or whether cumulative effect of continuous
misconduct is such as proving incorrigibility and
complete unfit for Police service, nature of misconduct,
circumstance in which such misconduct is committed,
nature of duties of the employees are some of the factors
to be taken into account. What may not be a “gravest” act
of misconduct in some other service may be gravest of
misconduct in police service.”
11. In regard to the other contention raised by learned counsel
for the petitioner that the previous service record relating to misconduct
could not have been taken into consideration while passing the order of
dismissal without giving notice to the petitioner as the same was not
mentioned in the show cause notice. In regard to the abovementioned
contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, is concerned, it
is well settled law that in light of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules,
1934, the Punishing Authority is entitled to take into consideration the
previous service record to come to the conclusion with regard to
misconduct being a gravest act of misconduct or continuous
misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfit for Police
service.
12. A similar issue came up for consideration before this
Court in CWP No.9342 of 2013 titled as Narinder Singh Vs. State of
DIWAKER GULATI
2026.04.27 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-8-
CWP No.15119 of 2018(O&M)
Punjab, decided on 02.05.2013, wherein it is held that the previous
record can be taken into consideration while passing the order of
dismissal. The relevant extract from the said judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
“9. The last plea of the counsel for the petitioner that while
taking into consideration the previous service record of the
petitioner, the same was not mentioned in the show cause
notice nor were the orders/documents imposing punishment
upon the petitioner supplied along with the show cause
notice and, therefore, the principles of natural justice have
been violated, in support of which, reliance has been placed
upon the judgment of this Court in Jaspider Singh‘s case
(supra), cannot be accepted to be correct in the light of the
fact that it is not the case of the petitioner that the
punishments, which have been referred to and the absence
period mentioned in the impugned order were incorrect or
is not in accordance with the service record. Petitioner was
well aware of the orders and the period of his absence from
duty and, therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the
petitioner. In any case, as per Rule 16.2 of the Punjab
Police Rules, 1934, the punishing authority is entitled to
take into consideration the previous service record to come
to a conclusion with regard to the mis-conduct being a
gravest misconduct. When such a power is conferred under
the statute itself and the facts on the basis of the service
record as recorded in the punishment order being
undisputed, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner
and, therefore, it cannot be accepted that the principles of
natural justice have been violated. In Jaspinder Singh‘s case
(supra), the Court did not take into consideration the Rule
16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which specifically
confers powers on the punishing authority to look into the
DIWAKER GULATI
2026.04.27 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-9-
CWP No.15119 of 2018(O&M)previous record of the employee for forming an opinion
with regard to the gravity of the mis-conduct of the
employee. The action of the respondents being in
consonance with the statutory Rules cannot be said to be
illegal especially when no prejudice has been caused to the
petitioner.”
13. In regard to interference by this Court with the quantum of
punishment is concerned, it is well settled law that punishment imposed
upon the employee is primarily within the domain of the disciplinary
authority. Courts must exercise restrain and refrain from interfering
with the quantum of punishment, unless, it is grossly disproportionate
to the gravity of the misconduct. In Union of India and others Vs.
Constable Sunil Kumar, (2023) 3 SCC 622 decided on 19.01.2023
while following the other judgments, Hon’ble the Supreme Court held
that interference with the punishment is permissible only when the
punishment imposed is strikingly disproportionate to the misconduct.
14. In regard to the contention raised by learned counsel for
the petitioner that taking into consideration the length of service of the
petitioner and the period of absence, the punishment imposed by the
respondents is harsh and is disproportionate to the gravity of the
misconduct and, as such, the order of dismissal dated 17.12.2015
(Annexure P-6) is liable to be set aside, is concerned, a perusal of the
facts of the present case would show that the petitioner remained absent
from duty for 86 days and 05 hours without getting the leave
sanctioned and thereafter, he again remained absent, after the initiation
of departmental proceedings and during the pendency of the
DIWAKER GULATI
2026.04.27 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-10-
CWP No.15119 of 2018(O&M)
departmental proceedings, for 43 days on various occasions. Service
record of the petitioner further indicates multiple punishments like 11
years of his service has been forfeited on permanent basis, he has been
censured twice, punished with drill once and 310 days have been
treated as non-duty period. Taking into consideration the abovesaid
facts, it cannot be held that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner
is harsh or disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct or is
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
15. Reliance is made to the judgment passed by Coordinate
Bench of this Court in CWP-4762-2009 titled as Jagjit Singh Vs.
State of Punjab and others decided on 19.08.2025. In the abovesaid
case, the petitioner was working on the post of Constable and he
remained absent from duty for 185 days. Taking into consideration the
fact that the petitioner therein was absent from duty for the abovesaid
period and was also a habitual absentee, it was held that the punishment
of dismissal cannot be held to be disproportionate to the gravity of the
misconduct. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:-
“6. From the perusal of record, it is evident that
petitioner has been dismissed from service on account of
absence from duty for 185 days. It was not his first
misconduct. He was habitual absentee. The Disciplinary
Authority while passing impugned order has noticed his past
record. He was subjected to punishment of censure on
previous occasion. He remained absent from duty for 185
days during 09.07.1997 to 10.01.1998 and thereafter for 73
days during 14.01.1999 to 28.03.1999. This shows that
despite repeated opportunities, the petitioner neverDIWAKER GULATI
2026.04.27 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-11-
CWP No.15119 of 2018(O&M)attempted to improve himself. He was part of Police Force
where discipline is of paramount consideration.
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 reads 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 hall
mark of the Armed Forces and a non-negotiable
condition of service.
XXXXX 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
DIWAKER GULATI
2026.04.27 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-12-
CWP No.15119 of 2018(O&M)
infliction of a punishment lesser than that which
has been awarded to him.”
16. Similar issue came up for consideration before Coordinate
Bench of this Court in RSA-1092-2018 titled as Sarabhjit Singh Vs.
Punjab State and others decided on 19.05.2023. In the abovesaid
case also, petitioner was working in the Punjab Police and had
remained absent for 03 and a half months and it was held that
unauthorized absence from duty without leave amounts to a grave act
of misconduct and the punishment of dismissal cannot be held to be
disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. Relevant extract of
the judgment is reproduced below:-
“11. In the present case, it is a conceded fact that
for a period of almost three and half months, the
appellant-plaintiff remained un-authorizedly absent from
service and he did not join the duties after being
transferred to Tarn Taran.
12. As per the settled principle of law, the
un-authozied absence from duty without leave amount to
grave act of misconduct especially in respect of the
member of the disciplined force.
13. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, for the misconduct of unauthorized absence,
the punishment of dismissal of service can be awarded. The
reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.9997 of 1995
titled as State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Singh, decided on
10.11.1995. The relevant paragraph 8 of the said judgment
is as under:-
“8. We are clearly of the opinion that the High
Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in modifying
the punishment while concurring with the
DIWAKER GULATI
2026.04.27 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-13-
CWP No.15119 of 2018(O&M)findings of the Tribunal on facts. The High Court
failed to bear in mind that the first respondent
was a police constable and was serving in a
disciplined force demanding strict adherence to
the rules and procedures more than any other
department. Having notices the fact that the first
respondent has absented himself from duty
without level on several occasions, we are unable
to appreciate the High Court’s observation that
‘his absence from duty would not amount to such
a grave charge’. Even otherwise on the facts of
this case, there was no justification for the High
Court to interfere with the punishment holding
that ‘the punishment does not commensurate with
the gravity of the charge’ especially when the
High Court concurred with the findings of the
Tribunal on facts. No case for interference with
the punishment is made out.”
14. Hence, once a gravest act of misconduct has been
proved against the appellant, it cannot be said that the
imposition of punishment of dismissal from service is
disproportionate in the facts and circumstances of the
present case so as to warrant any interference by this Court.
15. Further, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that once the appellant had more than 13 years of
service to his credit on the day when he was dismissed, he
should have been compulsorily retired so that he could have
become eligible for the grant of pensionary benefits.
16. First of all, once there is a grave misconduct by
an employee, the employer is well within its jurisdiction to
impose the proportionate punishment. Merely that an
employee has 10 years of service to his/her credit cannot be
taken into account so as to reduce the punishment.
Punishment is to be imposed keeping in view the gravity of
DIWAKER GULATI
2026.04.27 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-14-
CWP No.15119 of 2018(O&M)
the misconduct and not the service rendered by an
employee.
17. Secondly, acceptance of the said argument will
result in indiscipline as an honest employee working with
the department but for one or the other reason could not
continue in service after rendering 13 years of service and
has to resign and the resignation means forfeiture of service
already rendered by him/her and the said employee is not
entitled for any pensionary benefits whereas, in case
argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff is
accepted that lenient view should be taken while imposing
punishment upon the appellant-plaintiff because he had 13
years of service to his credit will be putting an honest
employee at a lower pedestal than the one who has
misconducted himself/herself so as to get the pensionary
benefits. This is not envisaged under the rules that an honest
employee who had to resign should suffer forfeiture of his
service, whereas an employee who has misconducted
himself/herself should get lenient punishment so as to get all
the benefits. The net result of the acceptance of the
argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff
will be that no employee will like to resign from service
rather will intend to commit a misconduct in case he/she
has rendered more than 10 years of service so as to make
him/her eligible for pensionary benefits, which view will not
only be contrary to the rules framed but will also create
indiscipline hence, the said argument cannot be accepted
and is accordingly rejected.”
17. Similar issue again came up for consideration before this
Court in RSA-2485-2003 titled as Mahender Singh Vs. State of
Haryana decided on 29.03.2023. In the abovesaid case, petitioner
was working as Constable in Punjab Police and the absence was for a
DIWAKER GULATI
2026.04.27 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-15-
CWP No.15119 of 2018(O&M)
period of 74 days and it was held by Coordinate Bench that the absence
from duty amounts to grave act of misconduct and dismissal from
service is justified and not disproportionate to the gravity of the
misconduct. Relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced below:-
“10. Even otherwise, once the appellant-plaintiff has
not been able to show a justifiable cause before the
authorities concerned for the absence, the absence has to be
treated as wilful absence. Therefore, the argument being
raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
absence was not wilful, cannot be accepted in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
though there is no written justification given before the
authorities concerned qua the absence but a private doctor
was produced before the Enquiry Officer so as to present
that the appellant-plaintiff was not well and was advised to
take rest by the said doctor.
12. Qua the said argument, the disciplinary
authorities, in the fitness of things, keeping in view the fact
that the appellant is a Government servant and requires a
medical certificate from the Government Hospital for
availing leave on medical grounds, demanded a medical
certificate from Government Hospital. No such certificate
was ever presented so as to substantiate the claim that the
ailment was of such nature, due to which the appellant-
plaintiff could not attend the duties.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been
able to point out any evidence qua ailment, benefit of which
has been claimed. In the absence of any such evidence
before the departmental proceedings that ailment was such
that it forced the appellant to be absent from service, it
cannot termed that the decision of the Department in notDIWAKER GULATI
2026.04.27 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-16-
CWP No.15119 of 2018(O&M)accepting the recommendation/observation of a private
practioner can be treated as arbitrary or illegal.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits
that while passing the order of dismissal, the earlier
punishment imposed has been taken into account, which
itself vitiate the proceedings/order passed by the
respondents dismissing the appellant-plaintiff from service.
15. It may be noticed that as per conceded facts, the
show cause notice which was issued to the appellant-
plaintiff after the allegations were proved in the enquiry
proceedings, the Department brought to the notice of the
appellant that the action will be taken keeping in view his
earlier conduct wherein, he has remained absent and has
been imposed punishment. The appellant chose not to submit
a reply to the said show cause notice. That being so, once
the decision of the Department to take into consideration the
earlier punishment, was brought to the notice of the
appellant-plaintiff even before imposing the punishment and
the appellant-plaintiff did not submit any reply to the same,
hence, the appellant-plaintiff cannot be allowed to raise a
grievance at this stage that the punishments imposed earlier
in his service career have been taken into consideration
which vitiate the departmental proceedings.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits
that even otherwise, 74 days of absence is not such a grave
misconduct so as to dismiss an employee who is having 12
years of service to his credit.
17. It may be noticed here that it was only in the year
1989 itself, the appellant-plaintiff was absent in an
unauthorized way for a period of 74 days and that too on
different occasion. It is also a conceded position before this
Court that there were allegations of absence on earlier
occasions also for which the appellant-plaintiff had already
been punished. That being so, the appellant-plaintiff was aDIWAKER GULATI
habitual offender qua unauthorized absence, hence, keeping
2026.04.27 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-17-
CWP No.15119 of 2018(O&M)in view the facts and circumstances of the present case
where, it has already come that the appellant-plaintiff has
been absenting himself from service in an unauthorized
manner and his conduct was not as such to be retained in a
disciplined force, the imposition of punishment of dismissal
cannot be treated as harsh or disproportionate to the
charges alleged.
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil
Appeal No.9997 of 1995 titled as State of U.P. vs. Ashok
Kumar Singh, decided on 10.11.1995, has held that absence
from duty in respect of a police official, who is a member of
disciplined force, is to be treated as grievous act of
misconduct and the punishment of dismissal cannot be
treated as disproportionate.
xx xx xx xx
19. As the appellant-plaintiff is a habitual absentee,
the punishment of dismissal imposed upon him cannot be
treated disproportionate to the charges alleged and proved.
20. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4212 of 1997 titled as
State of Punjab vs. Bakhshish Singh, decided on
05.05.1997, the imposition of punishment is the prerogative
of the punishing authority and the Court cannot substitute
its own view with that of the disciplinary authority unless
and until the punishment imposed is too shocking, hence, no
ground is made out for intervention of this Court qua the
same argument.
21. Learned counsel for the appellant cites judgments
in Civil Appeal No.2106 of 2012 titled as Krushnakant B.
Parmar vs. Union of India and another, decided on
15.02.2012, RSA No.2438 of 1982 titled as Jawant Singh
vs. State of Punjab, decided on 18.07.1996, CWP No.13608
of 1989 titled as Paramjit Singh, Ex-Head Constable vs.
State of Punjab, decided on 02.11.1995, Civil AppealDIWAKER GULATI
No.1621 of 1986 titled as Ram Chander vs. Union of India
2026.04.27 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-18-
CWP No.15119 of 2018(O&M)and others, decided on 02.05.1986, RSA No.1159 of 1986
titled as State of Punjab and another vs. Ram Singh,
decided on 10.03.1989, CWP No.6001 of 1989 titled as
Mahipat vs. State of Haryana, decided on 17.03.1994 and
Civil Appeal No.496 of 1965 titled as Management of the
Northern Railway Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.
Jodhpur vs. Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan-Jaipur and
another, decided on 27.01.1967.
22. Law being cited by the learned counsel for the
appellant-plaintiff noticed hereinbefore are not applicable
in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Law is to
be applied as per the facts and circumstances of the case
and hence, no benefit of the judgments cited above can be
given in favour of the appellant being not applicable.
23. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out
for any interference by this Court in the present Regular
Second Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.”
18. Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in RSA-1874-2001 titled as The Punjab State and others
Vs. Shri Jaswinder Singh, reported as 2024 NCPHHC 140985
decided on 22.10.2024.
19. In view of the facts of the case, the above-referred
judgments and the relevant rule, this Court finds no merit in the present
writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed
of.
27.04.2026 (DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA)
d.gulati JUDGE
Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
DIWAKER GULATI
2026.04.27 16:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-19-
