The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a Punjab Constable, ruling that repeated absence in a short service tenure amounts to gross indiscipline in police forces.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India, in a recent ruling, upheld the dismissal of a Punjab Police Constable for repeated unauthorized absence from duty, terming it as gross indiscipline unfit for a disciplined force.
The judgment, delivered by a two-Judge Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh, reinforces the principle that habitual absenteeism cannot be tolerated in police service.
Background of the Case
The respondent, Satpal Singh, was appointed as a Constable in the Punjab Armed Forces in 1989 and later transferred to the Commando Force at Patiala. In April 1994, he availed one day of sanctioned leave but overstayed for nearly 37 days without permission. This was not an isolated incident; records revealed multiple prior absences for which he had already faced departmental action.
A departmental enquiry was initiated, during which Singh chose not to cross-examine witnesses or produce evidence in his defense. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued, but he failed to respond. The disciplinary authority dismissed him from service in 1996, also treating the absence period as non-duty.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Under Article 142: “9 Years, 3 States, 1 Resolution”
Chronology of Proceedings
Trial Court & First Appeal: Both courts dismissed Singh’s challenge, upholding the dismissal.
High Court: In 2010, the Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled in Singh’s favour, holding that the dismissal order was based on his past record, which had not been communicated in the show cause notice. The High Court relied on State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda (1964).
Supreme Court Appeal: The State of Punjab challenged this ruling before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Apex Court carefully examined the record and made the following key points:
- Gravest Misconduct vs. Continued Misconduct:
- Under Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, dismissal can be ordered either for the gravest act of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility.
- In Singh’s case, the dismissal was based on the gravest act (37 days of unauthorized absence), not cumulative misconduct.
- Reference to Past Misconduct:
- The Court clarified that the disciplinary authority had mentioned Singh’s previous absences only to add weight to its reasoning, not as the basis of dismissal.
- Hence, the High Court wrongly applied the principle in K. Manche Gowda.
- Discipline in Police Service:
- The Bench emphasized that absence without permission in a short tenure of just seven years amounts to gross indiscipline.
- Police service demands the highest level of responsibility, and habitual absenteeism cannot be condoned.
The Supreme Court allowed the State’s appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment, holding,
“The absence of the respondent from duty on various occasions in a short tenure of service of around 7 years is gross indiscipline… the dismissal was rightly imposed as a consequence of proved misconduct.”
Thus, the dismissal of Constable Satpal Singh was upheld, reaffirming the importance of discipline in the police force.
Key Highlights
- Unauthorized absence, especially repeated, can amount to the gravest misconduct justifying dismissal from the police service.
- Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules distinguishes between dismissal for a single gravest act and dismissal for cumulative misconduct.
- Past misconduct may be referenced to support the decision, but cannot be the sole basis unless disclosed in advance.
- Courts will generally not interfere with disciplinary punishments in disciplined forces unless they are shockingly disproportionate.
Appearance:
Appellants: DAG Talha Abdul Rehman, AOR Nupur Kumar, and Advocate Sudhanshu Tewari.
Respondent: AORs Manju Jetley, Varun Punia, Advocates Jetendra Singh, Vijendra Kumar Kaushik, Priyanka Singh, and Deepti Singh.
Cause Title:
State of Punjab and Others v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2012
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports On the Supreme Court
