Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Police Constable for Unauthorised Absence

High Court Emphasizes Strict Discipline in Police Force, Overturns Reinstatement Order

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a landmark judgment, firmly establishing that unauthorised absence from duty by an employee of a disciplined force, such as the police, strikes at the very root of discipline and operational efficiency. The court declared this act as one of the gravest forms of misconduct, with significant implications for maintaining public trust and institutional integrity.

Case Background: Constable's Dismissal and Legal Battle

Justice Namit Kumar of the high court passed these decisive orders while allowing an appeal filed by the Punjab government. The appeal sought to set aside lower court orders that had directed the reinstatement of a police constable, Devinder Singh, who was dismissed for unauthorised absence from duty.

Devinder Singh was enrolled as a constable in the Punjab Police on August 24, 1978. According to court records, he proceeded on sanctioned leave on August 25, 1989, but failed to resume duty thereafter. Singh claimed he did not return due to alleged illness, but he was placed under suspension on October 26, 1989, effective from August 31, 1989.

He was treated as absent from duty for the period from September 1, 1989, to January 3, 1990. This was followed by the issuance of a charge sheet and a regular departmental enquiry. In the enquiry, he was found guilty and dismissed from service on July 26, 1990, by the commandant of the 27th Battalion, PAP, Jalandhar Cantonment.

Lower Court Decisions and High Court's Intervention

Devinder Singh challenged his dismissal before a civil court without first exhausting departmental remedies. The trial court ruled in his favour, holding that absence from duty did not amount to the gravest form of misconduct. This view was later partially modified by the appellate court in 2000, which had earlier granted reinstatement in 1994, though without back wages for part of the period.

The high court verdict has now overturned these decisions from both civil courts passed in 1994 and the first appellate court in 2000. Justice Kumar emphasized that strict discipline is fundamental to police service, and unauthorised absence undermines operational efficiency and public trust, thereby justifying severe punishment, including dismissal.

Court's Rationale on Misconduct and Discipline

The high court rejected the argument that subsequent regularisation of the absence period erased the misconduct. It clarified that administrative treatment of absence does not amount to condonation of proven charges. The court observed that such conduct reflects a disregard for duty, disrupts institutional functioning, and undermines the principles of accountability and trust essential to public service.

Key Observation from the Judgment:

This ruling reinforces the critical importance of discipline in law enforcement agencies and sets a precedent for handling similar cases in the future, ensuring that accountability remains paramount in public service roles.