Service law – Dismissal from service – Unauthorized absence – Respondent appointed as constable in the Punjab Armed Forces and then transferred to the Commando Force – Respondent dismissed from the service on account of unauthorized absence – Respondent remained absent from duty for 68 days, 180 days, 20 days, and lastly for 37 days, for which the departmental enquiry was initiated, and was dismissed from the service – Suit by the respondent for declaration that the said order be declared as null and void and illegal, and mandatory injunction for reinstatement with continuity of service along with back wages – Suit as also first appeal dismissed – In second appeal, the High Court set aside termination order holding that while passing the termination order, the disciplinary authority took into consideration the previous misconduct of the respondent which was not put to him in the show cause notice, however the relief of back wages denied – Correctness:
Held: Dismissal of the respondent was based on gravest act of misconduct, for which he was dealt with by the disciplinary authority following the procedure as prescribed and in due observance of principles of natural justice, hence, no fault in the same – Absence of the respondent from the duty on various occasions in a short tenure of service of around 7 years, is a gross indiscipline on the part of the respondent and thus, no illegality in the order passed by the disciplinary authority – Reliance on r.16.2(1) of the 1934 Rules by the High Court also misplaced – Respondent was dealt by the department earlier on three occasions having remained absent from duty and the penalties were inflicted for the same – It is the fourth time when he remained absent to which, a chargesheet was issued and his guilt was found proved – He himself had not crossexamined the departmental witnesses and also had not produced any witness in his defense – Considering all these aspects and having found proved his misconduct, notice to show cause from dismissal was issued to the respondent – Disciplinary authority, while imposing the penalty, had merely referred the past conduct and also given weight to the gravest act of misconduct – Order of dismissal not based on the charge of “cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service” – Thus, mere reference of the past conduct would not amount to constitute dismissal of the respondent based on the second limb of r.16.2(1) – Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside – Punjab Police Rules, 1934. [Paras 25, 27, 29, 33]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.