Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal from Service for Habitual Absenteeism; Declines Interference Under Article 226
Case Name: Ram Phal Tomar vs. State of Haryana and Another
Date of Judgment: 12 November 2025
Citation: CWP-12732-2002
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the dismissal order, holding that the petitioner was a habitual absentee facing multiple departmental inquiries and had repeatedly remained absent without authorization. The Court held that the inquiry proceedings reflected proper compliance with procedure, and there was no violation of natural justice or misapplication of evidence. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents regarding discipline in uniformed forces, the Court ruled that no ground existed to interfere with the quantum of punishment or findings of disciplinary authorities.
Summary: The petitioner challenged dismissal orders dated 01.09.1998 and 25.04.2000, contending that departmental action was unfair and disproportionate. The record showed multiple instances of unauthorized absence spanning various years, with several charge sheets issued. As noted in the affidavit reproduced in the judgment, the petitioner was earlier exonerated in two inquiries; however, in the third inquiry relating to absence of 164 days, he was found guilty and dismissed. Additional periods of unauthorized absence were also recorded, and separate inquiries were kept pending due to the dismissal. The Court observed that the explanation offered was largely technical, and counsel expressed lack of instructions from the petitioner. The Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India (2023), emphasizing that absence from duty in uniformed services is a serious misconduct affecting public order and discipline. The Court further cited a Division Bench judgment in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, reiterating that personnel serving in uniformed roles are held to higher standards of discipline and unauthorized absence warrants strict action.
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the disciplinary authority’s findings were based on evidence, procedure was followed, and the punishment was proportionate given repeated misconduct. It reiterated that judicial review under Articles 226/227 does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of punishment unless it is arbitrary or shockingly disproportionate, which was not the case here.