Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking to set aside of dismissal of his service, a Single Judge Bench of Jagmohan Bansal J., stated that armed forces cannot retain any indisciplined member. It was not the petitioner’s case that he, for the first time, committed an alleged offence and was subjected to harsh punishment. Thus, the Court stated that the petitioner was a habitual offender and accordingly, upheld his dismissal.
Background
The petitioner was a Constable in the Haryana Police Force. He went on one week’s leave and did not join duty after completion of leave period. Accordingly, he was placed under suspension.
The respondent appointed Inquiry Officer, however, the petitioner opted not to join the proceedings, and the Inquiry Officer proceeded ex parte, and thus the petitioner was found guilty. The Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice stating that he remained absent from the duty on more than 40 occasions and was subjected to major and minor punishments.
The petitioner filed a reply to show cause notice but was dismissed by the Disciplinary Authority. He unsuccessfully preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority and further unsuccessfully preferred revision before the Revisionary Authority.
The petitioner contended that he could not be awarded punishment of dismissal from service as per Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as it can only be given in gravest misconduct. He also claimed that it had been settled that absence from duty cannot be called the gravest misconduct warranting dismissal from service.
Analysis and Decision
The Court viewed that the petitioner remained absent from duty for more than 300 days which compelled the authorities to pass order of dismissal from service considering past conduct of the petitioner. The Court stated that the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisionary Authority considered the past conduct of the petitioner and only then was the punishment awarded to him. It was noticed that he was awarded four major punishments and his 19 increments with permanent effect were forfeited during a short span of 12 years’ service.
Further, the Court opined that the petitioner was part of disciplined force and was bound to strictly follow the rules and regulations. Armed Forces cannot retain any indisciplined member. It is not a case of the petitioner that he, for the first time, committed an alleged offence and was subjected to harsh punishment. Thus, had it been his first offence, the Court would have applied principle of proportionality to reconsider quantum of punishment.
Considering that the petitioner was a habitual offender who was punished more than once and relying upon Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India, (2023) 9 SCC 100, the Court dismissed the petition.
[Arshad v. State of Haryana, CWP-20467 of 2025, decided on 21-7-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mohammad Arshad, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shashank Bhandari, Addl. A.G. Haryana
Buy Constitution of India HERE
