Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Ranjan Sharma dismissed a petition by a trainee lady constable challenging her discharge from service during basic police training and upheld the departmental orders terminating her engagement and rejecting her service appeal. The Court held that reliance on treatment from Tantriks could not be accepted as a legitimate or permissible justification for her extended absence from constabulary training, particularly when the record disclosed no admissible medical material to support her claim. Treating the prolonged, unexplained absence as willful and noting that her conduct reflected incorrigibility incompatible with police service, the Bench concluded that the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty imposed by the State authorities required no interference.

The petitioner, appointed as a Lady Constable on 01.01.2010, was required to undergo training at the 2nd IRBn, Sakoh. She remained absent from 19.02.2010 to 06.04.2010 and later stated that the absence was due to illness, submitting medical certificates only for 13 days within this period. She resumed training on 07.04.2010 and subsequently availed four days of casual leave from 16.04.2010, after which she failed to return on 22.04.2010. Communications dated 24.04.2010 and 06.05.2010 were issued to her through the Station House Officer, but she did not resume training.

Also Read: Non-Signatory To Arbitration Agreement Cannot Invoke Arbitration Clause Against Party With No Legal Relationship Or Intention To Be Bound; Supreme Court

Based on reports of absence, the authorities placed her under suspension on 28.05.2010, initiated Regular Departmental Inquiry under Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, and framed charges of wilful absence for both periods. The Inquiry Officer submitted the report in June 2010, holding the charges proved. A show-cause notice dated 06.08.2010 was served on her, but she did not file a response. On 25.08.2010, she was discharged under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules.

She filed a service appeal on 29.11.2014, which was rejected on 22.04.2015 after affording her a personal hearing. The present petition sought quashing of the discharge order and the rejection of the appeal, along with reinstatement.

The Court recorded that the petitioner remained absent during training and “had submitted the Medical Certificates for 13 days from 18.02.2010 to 02.03.2010” while being absent from 19.02.2010 to 06.04.2010. It was observed that she “remained incorrigible” when she again proceeded on leave from 16.04.2010 but did not report back on 22.04.2010, and, despite notices dated 24.04.2010 and 06.05.2010 having been “duly served on her on 10.05.2010”, she failed to resume duty.

The Court further stated that “for the period of absence on second occasion… no Medical Certificates or any other admissible cogent and convincing documentary evidence was either submitted”. It recorded that treatment allegedly taken from “Tantriks” “cannot be accepted as a permissible ground” to explain absence.

Regarding the Departmental Inquiry, the Court observed that the petitioner had not challenged the Inquiry Report and that “non-furnishing of Response-Reply… disentitles the petitioner from laying a challenge to the ultimate decision of discharge.” Rule 12.21 was held validly invoked, since the petitioner was “found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer” within the meaning of the rule.

The Court further recorded that the inquiry followed prescribed procedure and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate violation of Rule 16.24. Referring to established principles of judicial review, the Bench observed that the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority and “shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence.” It stated that interference is warranted only when findings are based on “no evidence”, or where natural justice is violated, none of which were shown in this case.

The Court noted that the petitioner remained absent twice during initial training and that “incorrigible act and conduct… is sufficient to uphold the Impugned Orders of Discharge”. The plea of poverty was rejected, stating that “sympathy shall not over turn the ways and balances.” Ultimately, it was recorded that the “Impugned Orders… does not suffer from any infirmity, perversity or illegality.”

Also Read: CM Relief Fund Assistance Not Adjustable Against Medical Reimbursement; HP High Court Allows Writ Petition, Quashes State Deduction Order

The Court held that “Order dated 25.08.2010 [Annexure A-8], discharging the petitioner from the post of Lady Constable during her training period is upheld. Order dated 22.04.2015 [Annexure A-12] rejecting the service appeal of the petitioner, considering the entire fact is upheld, which was passed after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner on 21.05.2015. Parties to bear respective costs. The petition “is disposed of along with all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Mr. Piyush Mehta, and M.A. Safee, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General

Case Title: Sapna Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:41903
Case Number: CWPOA No.5173 of 2019
Bench: Justice Ranjan Sharma