'Police Officer Has To Maintain Greater Discipline, Act Of Remaining Absent From Duty Is Gravest From Of Misconduct': Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has rejected the plea of a police officer challenging his dismissal for being absent from his duty without leave for 259 days.Acting Chief G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji said, "We are of the considered opinion that it is settled principle by various judgments that a man in uniform has to maintain greater discipline and the act of remaining...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has rejected the plea of a police officer challenging his dismissal for being absent from his duty without leave for 259 days.
Acting Chief G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Lapita Banerji said, "We are of the considered opinion that it is settled principle by various judgments that a man in uniform has to maintain greater discipline and the act of remaining absent from duty is a gravest act of misconduct."
Reliance was placed upon the case of State of Punjab & others v. Mohinder Singh, [2005] wherein the Apex Court allowed the appeal filed by the State by noticing that there was absence of 5 1⁄2 months and it was reprehensible conduct by the Constable.
These observations were made while hearing a letter patents appeal of a policeman against a single judge's decision wherein it refused to interfere with the dismissal order on account of unauthorized absence for 259 days during his services in 2008.
Facts In Brief
Balwinder Singh joined Police Forces in the year 1993. It is stated that in the year 2008, he proceeded on Ex-India Leave from the 16th of March, 2008 to the 14th of April, 2008. On the expiry of such period he opted not to return back though as per him he filed an application seeking an extension of leave through fax.
It is argued that when the petitioner returned back, he found that his services already stood terminated by order dated 29th of December, 2008.
Thereafter, the appeal preferred by him was dismissed being barred by delay and a mercy petition was also ordered to be dismissed being not maintainable in the facts and circumstances.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the petitioner had applied for an extension of leave, the authorities ought to have passed the order on such application rejecting the same or accepting it.
He submitted that in view of the aforesaid fact the punishment of dismissal being extreme punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the petitioner.
Proceedings Before Single Judge
The single judge noted that it goes unrebutted that the petitioner after the expiry of the leave, opted not to report back to duty.
"He relies upon unilateral request at his end seeking extension of leave period. He never bothered to find as to whether such prayer has been accepted or rejected. Thus, there can't be any dispute w.r.t. the finding recorded by the departmental authorities that the absence on part of the petitioner was willful," the Court said.
It added that the petitioner being a member of disciplined forces was definitely under obligation to report back to the duty after period of leave granted by the employer expired and, thus, it can't be said that the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the charges proved against the petitioner much less shockingly disproportionate.
Proceeding Before Division Bench
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the basic principle which has been time and again laid down is that remaining absent from duty after the sanctioned leave by uniformed personnel is fatal.
The Court considered that the appellant voluntarily "kept away from his duties which were very much required by his department and the fact that the matter was duly enquired upon."
While noting that notice before dismissal was already sent to his residence, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Ajay Singh, Advocate, for S.K.Banga, Advocate for the appellant.
Saurav Khurana, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 98
Title: Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & others