State Of Punjab And ORS v. Surinder Singh


  
  


!"# #$%&%'( ) *

"!"# +',!-!'."/#0& 11#22!'"& 3#0&+& +0%'.#0%'4/ 
#&1'.#'"

 

 

   
 

     






    



!!!

 



   !

"

#   

$ 

 %" &' "(("

)* "" )&"%





+ 



  &" "" "(,'

$

 

 

 

  %" &" "(,* $

 

  ", &( "(,* 

  

 $

 

  

+ 

$ ) -

 

$ 

 





    




&* &/ "(0*

 



1



 1  "(,'

 



2 $ 



 

 







 



$ 



 

", &% "(,'

"" &/ "(,'

3  $    $   

   + 

+ 



   $  



 

$

/ 4$ 1     + 

$



$ 

 

  &" "" "(,'

 $

 + 

  

 

 



$

$

%" &" "(,*



  





$

# 



", &( "(,*

'

 

   1 



 $

   $   %" &' "(("

 



1 





  

$   5







) 





 6

 7  



* 8   

 

  



 

$

      )* "" )&"%

       

   6

$ 

  

+   

  $ 





 

 

+ 

 $ 

 $   1  

 : 

+     $

;

$

# -  <

(((0

"(('

 

"# $

%

 "& '(  ) 

"& "" "(('

, : 

+   $

 

 

   

 



$

;

$

# -  <

'"0

"(**  

"# * + $*

%

  ", ) 

"& &% "(*(  

$ 

1 





 $  



$







$  



 ( :  



+ 



 $

 5



 

$

 



 5

: 

  $ $

)/ ;



 $

 

 

   

    : 

 $$ 1

 $

  $ 

    $ 1

  "& #



  





    

""

 5





 

 5 $

$$ 





  

$ 

# $

  %" &' "(("



 )/ ;

 

  $ 

 

;

*

$

#  "& '(  - .

(,!

;

$

#



  $ 



 $ $ 

 $ 

  ,

 + "8.

We are clearly of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in modifying the punishment while concurring with the 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."
") 3

;

$

#

 

  $ 

 

 $

  "%  $



 

+  

$



  $

  5

 



 $





 

1 5 



 $ 



 

 "/ $ 

 

;

$

#   ", (,!)



1  "(*(



  



$  





 $ 

 

  <

' *

$   + 

 


 



 
  



 
 




! "

#
$

#  




 #
 




 
 #
%
 %%

&
'




 
%



(

 #

 


%  

!
"

#

 # 


# 




 #
 




 
)
 #


    % 

*


 

 %  


 


 
    


#  



(
 

  
+

, )- 
 

. 




  / %



 %
! 
0 %   

 % 
1

%2
/ %

!
"

#

%






 
"

%


# 

 #
 )

 


- 
&+$ ++
0 2
*


  



 



  



    

3

#
- 
&+ ++4*0 2
% 



 


 
%

% 
 


- 

&$ 4*0 2


 
!
  "

%
5



%% 


%



,
02
3
%
 

 
 

 #

+++
 +
02
%

%
 
&'
 
 

 #

+

&+
02
6
 



 
+
 
 #
+
  
 
7
 
 #
 
 '
 
+
 
 #
 '

&8')  


%
 ##  



##  
9

%
5   

%% 
:



  
; 
5 #
9

%
3 %



 
%

# 



#  
 


# % #
7
*


 

 



%

 !



 
%

%
 






%  


 #



 #   

 





 #





 



 
  
%

 



 


 %


#  

 #
 #
 
 

 #

 




<
 
  
  
)
= 
%






% % 


 

    
 
   



  (
0

(2

 #



 




 
 


 
 
    

  (
0

(2

 #

 


 




!
"

#


 

 

 



    ) 
 




#    

> 






!
"

# 

 




 
%



 
%

# 



#  
 # % #



# 
%
 



#   

 
 


 

 


< #

%








 

%  
 

 #

 
?


 

  
 


 %

 



(
   

 




%  

 #


 > 

#  

# % #





%  
#  
9 



#  


# % #








 

%

# 





#


"

 
  
@ )



 

69
!<
5

 !


"

#

  
@ 
"% #   
5 #
=

%

 %

   

#  

# % #




  
 


%  

% 

  
%









#




# 

 #


 


%

%

 A
"'

<

  ;

$

#

  -  <

/(*(

)&&,  

"# $(/0

%

1 $  ) 

%" &0 )&&,





 $ 5  $  $  $  



   $ 

  <

""

 + "11. In this case, the punishment was imposed by order dated 16.9.1999/11.10.1999. That order was not cancelled, revoked or withdrawn. The subsequent order dated 25.1.2001 merely accorded extraordinary leave in regard to the period of absence, but did not condone the unauthorized absence nor wipe out the punishment already imposed. The said order was only consequential to the imposition of punishment. Its effect was to maintain continuity of service of the respondent, but deny salary for the period of absence and not to count the period of absence as qualifying service for the purposes of pension. Its effect is certainly not to exonerate the respondent from the charge of unauthorised absence nor to wipe out the punishment. If the intention was to revoke the punishment, the order dated 25.1.2001 would have clearly stated so. But it did not."
"* 3 $ 1 $   (,!

   ", (,!)

 



  

 

 

 "0    

 

 $ $  6

 

 



 $ $



# $

   

 





 $ 



 $

 

 $ 

 6 





$ 







1     ", =

  

+ 



 <

))/,

)&"/  2 

% 

"# $(/0) 

&, &( )&"' 

 ;

$ 

  5$

$ $  

  

$  1

 

  $$ 





"( : 

  





 

 ;



 

$   

$

 

$ 

$ 5

    $   

   $  )& =

 

   

  $

 5    $ 5





  



 $ 





     

   

 

 $

  



 $  $

 



 $ 

2

   



    

 $ 5

   5$

$

 

  

 5

)"

2 1

 $ $ 

++

 $ 

 

 

 





  %" &' "(("

 

    )* "" )&"%  +





+    





$

 $   

 

  

!7 )0.8



 B

 =
 B  4 
,
C4-

=


%




,

C4-