Gurbir Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others




  


  

 !"!#$!%&'  (

) *+! #&,&-!.!&+'

/ (

) 01*%!%&' / (

) Gurbir Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

*****
 '

2 3 4
4  3

*****

Present:

Mr. Lajwant Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab.

4 3 5 #*1 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 -1-

(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.

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 -3-

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:, "





        

 



  -4-

     

            

  

     

 



  

       

   !

 "#

  

"


$ 

 

$ 

$ 

    

     

        $      

  %   

  

 

      & (ii)  

        

     

   &   

 

   & (iv) 

   

 

   



  & (v)

                 

  '  

         $   $  

$ 

 



& (vi)          

 

     

   &  

   

 

  ( &    

    )

    *  

  

  !  





$

$ 



 +



 $ 

)

    



 

 

  $$ 

     !     $    $      



    ,   -.      /   /

 0   

  

      

    



 -5-

 

     

   

      # 

 

 

  



    

      $     

  



  

    

     

 



 



         


1
 2 3     *  

  

$





 

 

+ $     +     

     $      

  







 0 ( ' 



 

 

  



 "

   $   

      

$   

 

     

 $ 

     

    0 ( '4 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 act of misconduct,", as such, in light of sub,rule (1) of Rule 16.2 of the -6-

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











  !
 
"
#

 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.

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 $%

&'

'


 




 -8-

 !"
#

'"
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.

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 &6& &%6**&%+7!#"8"
&"+*91!4,&61:,.*#5

;;4

)

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 -10-

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
<(/) <

titled as *=>6+46&=78" 4+*+! ,&>*9*&%+7!#" 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:, " #  

$   

  



    

         
-5         

      

  6

  

  7 

 )   





 

 6

*





 



6

    
-5     898.
99.
88

99-  .2     
:8

999-82
999 7   

     

    $         -11-







6

0 #  

 



     . ,

 /  ;()
* +
,

- .




/ 
 
0
1'2
&
$$



  

   

    

         /   

     

     

 + 

) #  

     7  !   *   

% <

  

     



  

7     

         ,

=  , 

  







) #



   6

 

     

  $  $     
8-      $

  

 

     >





   

 

 

) #  "       ?????????????

-# 



 $ 

      

  *   ,


-
.




/ "

$$
3  
66

)#7 7

   

         

  

      

 $  

    

  $     7 

!           

   7$                  -12-

  



   

   4 16.

Similar issue came up for consideration before Coordinate Bench of this Court in 4 <

<

titled as 4*#*97>6+46&=78" ,&>*94+*+!*&%+7!#"  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:, "

   

$          

       

   $  

"

 

 "

 '   

            *             7 7  
  )         

   

$  

"

'        

        

   



    

    

 


2  )   *      6@  ,

 /   $

 

 '  $ 



     7 

 



*  6@ ,

 /     $-
**

&&&

&& 



. 
-

7
8


"
#

&&7  

 

-

*  

%"

;-3      6  / 

!  *          

             -13-

   7 

  76 /  

      

 

    

  

 



     

      

 6        

  

   

           



 $   

 6 / @     @    



 



  @      

$

*

    6  /   

    @

 



      @



 6 /       7 

  =

   



 4
:6$    

 



  

$  

 

     

    

    



              

    

 

 

     / 
5  # $         



  

   
2  

    



$



 

    

            
#  

$  

 



$

 

    *    

         

  A     




8     1           

       

  

       -14-

 

               


., $  

 





   



 

   

  



        
2     

          

  1 



                 

$    



  

"

 

      

  

 





"

 

 
2       



  

      

          

 

1  

      7 

 

  

   



  

 $  

  

    

 

1  

  

 



      7    

           



  

"

  

 



     

 

 

  

1 

  
8     



1        $  

   



 

   

$

 

   

   *4 17.

Similar issue again came up for consideration before this Court in 4 < ( <

; titled as *7!&%!# 46&=78" 4+*+!

*#?*&* decided on 29.03.2023. In the abovesaid case, petitioner was working as Constable in Punjab Police and the absence was for a -15-

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:, ;
8  $

"

 

            *

     

    

     $  

  

 

 7$ 

  

  

 

 

 

$        

 



B  



     *

     

   +

       

  + >  

    

"

 





   


  C

  

  

$     



   $  

  $      

 (    + 

 

          (   6

 



   

  $

  

    ( 6

=

    

   



  

 





 $  

"

 

    
2B  





      +

$  



    

  

 

   



   

    $      

   -16-

      

  1         

    

  




:B  

 



     

        

$      



 

    $            1 

     

 



"

   
5 

  

  $

  

        

     

"

  

     + 

  $

   

   

    

   $



   



 

7

 







 

 7   $  

         

$  

             

"

 

 

  

"

  

  



$ $

"

  





     



                 

 

  
B  

 



  $.:     

  

  





   
       
. 

   

   
9-9   $   

"

   

    

 '   .:     

 

    

/  

        



 

"

  

  

7   $

"

 

 

+

 '  $$  -17-

    

   

$ 

   

"

 

      

       

 '

   



  

 

$

  



       

       

         


-76@ ,

 /     $-

**

&&&

&&




. 
-

8


"
#

&&"


        

   

$   

  $         

  

  

      

    

      



    !!

!!

!!

!!

9) 

"

    

 $ 



 

    

    

   8  )   *      6@  ,

 /     $-
**



&&





 !
-
97 


"
#

&&$

  

     

 

  /  

        



 

  



    $$  

    / +



 

 
B  

  *  

$-
**

:




8

7 
9 
-
.




/ 
 


"
#

"

'6

&6


;< 


-


 !"
#

6&&:"
$%

':6


&6&





"
()=>
$

!
-



 !"
#

&&"
$-
**

:

&6:



$  
-
.




/  -18-

 
"
#

&6:"

&

&6:





 !
 



-



"

#

'&6&"
$%

:

&6&

 , *
-


>+ "
#

'&&
  $-
**

&:

&:


,   

 

 
<+
$ = *-
$

#+
? ;

 *
-
/ 
5! "
  =;*
  

"
#

&: B     

"

    

     

   

B   



   

 

$ *           

 

   2D    $ 

    /    E

 ,)



   

4 18.

Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in 4 </(<

 titled as 7!,&>*94+*+!*&%+7!#"

8"  47#6  *"@6&%!#  46&=75  #!0#+!%  *" 

(  

 ( 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.

/ (

) 4 3  

 Whether speaking / reasoned :

Yes No Whether Reportable :

Yes No -19-