Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held that dismissal of a police constable for unauthorized absence constituted a valid exercise of disciplinary powers under Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The Court set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment that had reinstated the constable with consequential benefits. The apex court clarified that the punishment was based on the gravest act of misconduct and not cumulatively on past service record, thereby upholding the disciplinary authority’s order of dismissal.

The matter arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against a constable of the Punjab Armed Forces, who was later transferred to the Commando Force and posted at Bahadurgarh, Patiala.

Also Read: Delhi High Court | Dismissal Of Plea Under Section 8 Of Arbitration Act Operates As Res Judicata | Section 11 Court Cannot Subsequently Refer Parties To Arbitration

The constable had initially joined service on 4 August 1989. In 1992, he was transferred to the 2nd Commando Battalion. On 2 April 1994, he applied for five days of leave but was granted only one day. He failed to report back on 4 April 1994 as required, and returned to duty only on 12 May 1994, amounting to a 37-day unauthorized absence.

Following this absence, a departmental enquiry was initiated. A chargesheet dated 7 August 1994 was served upon him, outlining allegations and listing prosecution witnesses. The department alleged that his conduct amounted to grave indiscipline. The constable was given opportunities to cross-examine witnesses and to produce evidence in his defence, but he declined. The enquiry officer concluded that the charges were proved.

Subsequently, on 25 May 1995, a show cause notice was issued, asking why he should not be dismissed from service and why his absence period should not be treated as non-duty. Despite service of the notice, the constable did not submit any reply. Consequently, on 3 May 1996, the disciplinary authority ordered his dismissal from service and directed that the absence period be treated as non-duty.

The dismissal order also recorded that the constable’s previous record included forfeiture of 17 years of approved service, earlier punishments for absence, suspension periods, and other pending departmental enquiries. The order concluded that the constable was neither interested in service nor capable of serving in the police force.

The constable challenged the dismissal order by filing an appeal before the appellate authority, which was dismissed. His revision petition before the revisional authority was also rejected.

Aggrieved, he instituted a civil suit seeking a declaration that the orders of dismissal and appellate/revisional orders were null, void, and illegal, along with reinstatement, continuity of service, and back wages. The suit was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Sultanpur Lodhi, on 18 July 2003. His first appeal before the District Judge, Kapurthala, was also dismissed on 1 June 2004.

Thereafter, he filed a second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court framed two substantial questions of law:

1. Whether dismissal could be justified by taking into account previous conduct not mentioned in the chargesheet.

2. Whether disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by violation of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.

On 4 August 2010, a learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal. Relying on the precedent in State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda (AIR 1964 SC 506), the High Court held that the dismissal order was illegal since the past record, which was not disclosed in the show cause notice, had influenced the disciplinary authority. The High Court partly decreed the suit, declared the dismissal orders illegal, and directed reinstatement with all consequential service benefits except back wages, which were forgone by affidavit.

The State of Punjab and others challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 312 of 2012. The appellants argued that the High Court erred in holding that dismissal was based on past misconduct. They contended that dismissal was based solely on the misconduct proved in enquiry, i.e., the 37-day unauthorized absence, while references to past conduct were only supplementary. Reliance was placed on India Marine Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Workmen (AIR 1963 SC 528) and Union of India v. Bishamber Das Dogra (2009) 13 SCC 102.

The appellants further argued that Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules contained two parts: dismissal for gravest acts of misconduct, and dismissal for cumulative misconduct. Since dismissal in this case was for gravest misconduct, the length of service was irrelevant. They stressed that as a member of a disciplined force, the constable’s conduct was intolerable.

The respondent’s counsel contended that the disciplinary authority had illegally relied on past misconduct without disclosure, contrary to K. Manche Gowda. He also argued that the length of service and pension claims under Rule 16.2(1) should have been considered. Reliance was placed on Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of U.P. (2010) 10 SCC 539.

The Supreme Court thereafter examined the rival submissions, the disciplinary record, the relevant statutory rule, and precedents before rendering judgment.

The Court examined the dismissal order and related documents. It recorded that the disciplinary authority had relied on the enquiry report, which found the respondent guilty of unauthorized absence, and agreed with the findings. It noted: “The disciplinary authority had clearly observed that it had perused the report of enquiry and conclusion thoroughly, whereby the respondent was held guilty for the unauthorized absence and agreed with the conclusion of the enquiry officer.”

The Court further recorded: “The disciplinary authority had further mentioned regarding the issuance of show cause notice to the respondent and had observed that despite the receipt of the show cause notice, the respondent did not submit his reply, which shows that the respondent accepted the allegation against him.”

While the dismissal order mentioned past record, the Bench observed: “From careful reading of the dismissal order reproduced hereinabove, it appears that the disciplinary authority had noted that 17 years of service of the respondent were forfeited as a result of his absence for 224 days and for which he was punished accordingly.”

The Court then turned to judicial precedents. It quoted India Marine Services Pvt. Ltd.: “It is true that the last sentence suggests that the past record of Bose has also been taken into consideration. But it does not follow from this that that was the effective reason for dismissing him.”

It further cited Director General, RPF v. Ch. Sai Babu (2003) 4 SCC 331: “Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate.”

The Court also referred to Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate (2005) 2 SCC 489: “In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the past conduct of the respondent as also his conduct during the domestic enquiry proceedings, we cannot say that the quantum of punishment imposed upon the respondent was wholly disproportionate.”

In Govt. of A.P. v. Mohd. Taher Ali (2007) 8 SCC 656, the Court had held: “In our opinion there can be no hard-and-fast rule that merely because the earlier misconduct has not been mentioned in the charge-sheet it cannot be taken into consideration by the punishing authority.”

Further, in Bishamber Das Dogra, the Court stated: “It is desirable that the delinquent employee may be informed by the disciplinary authority that his past conduct would be taken into consideration while imposing the punishment. But in case of misconduct of grave nature or indiscipline, even in the absence of statutory rules, the authority may take into consideration the indisputable past conduct/service record.”

Applying these authorities, the Court held: “The 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 therefore, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the disciplinary authority whereby the services of the respondent have been dismissed.”

It further noted: “So far as the finding of the High Court that the disciplinary authority should have taken into consideration the long service period of the respondent is concerned, we agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the said observation of the learned Single Judge is erroneous because… the respondent had served only for a brief period of less than 7 years as a Constable.”

Regarding Rule 16.2(1), the Bench observed: “A plain reading of Rule 16.2(1) of the Rules of 1934 suggests that it consists of two parts, the first part where the punishment of dismissal can be awarded to the delinquent for the gravest act of misconduct. However, in the second part, the punishment can be awarded as a cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service.”

It further clarified: “The reference to the fact of forfeiture of 17 years of service of the respondent as a result of his absence from service on previous occasions was in exclusion or independent of the misconduct for which the enquiry officer has found him guilty. The consideration of the past misconduct of the respondent was not the effective reason for dismissing him from the service.”

The Court concluded: “The order of dismissal is not based on the charge of ‘cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service’. Therefore, mere reference of the past conduct would not amount to constitute dismissal of the respondent based on the second limb of Rule 16.2(1).”

Ultimately, the Bench held: “As such, it is concluded that the 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, we do not find any fault in the same.”

Also Read: Supreme Court | Directions to All High Courts on Timely Pronouncement of Reserved Judgments | If Not Delivered Within Three Months, Registrar General Must Place Matter Before Chief Justice

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal filed by the State of Punjab and others. The Bench expressly directed: “Accordingly, the present appeal stands allowed setting aside the judgment of the High Court. In consequence, suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff stands dismissed. In the facts, parties to bear their own costs.”

The Court thereby quashed the High Court’s judgment dated 4 August 2010 in R.S.A. No. 3802 of 2004, which had earlier set aside the dismissal order. The apex court reinstated the validity of the dismissal order dated 3 May 1996 passed by the disciplinary authority, and the subsequent appellate and revisional orders.

The Court clarified that the dismissal was legally sustainable under Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules as it was based on a gravest act of misconduct, namely prolonged unauthorized absence.

 “Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Talha Abdul Rehman, Deputy Advocate General; Ms. Nupur Kumar, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Sudhanshu Tewar, Advocate; Mr. Faizan Ahmed, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Varun Punia, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Jetendra Singh, Advocate; Mr. Vijendra Kumar Kaushik, Advocate; Ms. Deepti Singh, Advocate; Mr. Ashutosh, Advocate; Ms. Manju Jetley, Advocate-on-Record

Case Title: State of Punjab and Others v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1056

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 312 of 2012

Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Justice Vijay Bishnoi