Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Police Constable for Habitual Absence; Rejects Widow’s Plea for Pension and Service Benefits

Case Name: Sanyogita vs. State of Haryana & Others
Date of Judgment: 01 December 2025
Citation: CWP-22757-2018
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a widow’s challenge to the dismissal of her husband, a Haryana Police constable, holding that he was a habitual absentee and had repeatedly committed grave misconduct incompatible with service discipline. The Court found no procedural illegality in the departmental inquiry and ruled that the employee did not possess the qualifying service to claim pension or other retiral benefits.

Summary: The petitioner’s husband, appointed as a constable in 1989, remained absent from duty on multiple occasions. His absence of over seven months in 2000–2001 led to a departmental inquiry, and he was dismissed from service in August 2001 after being found guilty. His appeal and revision were dismissed in 2002. The record showed that during his eleven years of service, he had remained absent for 378 days and had been awarded several punishments, including repeated censures and stoppage of increments.

The petitioner argued that her husband suffered from mental illness and had sought voluntary retirement. The Court rejected this contention, noting that he did not satisfy eligibility criteria under the Punjab Police Rules and that no order on his purported VRS request was ever passed. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad and on a Division Bench ruling in Balwinder Singh, reiterating that absence from duty by uniformed personnel is a gravest act of misconduct and that habitual absenteeism erodes the discipline foundational to police service.

The Court further emphasised the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. Since the inquiry followed prescribed procedure, evidence was duly appreciated, and the punishment was proportionate, the Court held that no interference was warranted. The absence period also rendered the employee ineligible for pension or service benefits.

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The Court affirmed the validity of the dismissal order, the findings of the disciplinary and appellate authorities, and the denial of pensionary benefits, holding that the misconduct and deficient qualifying service barred any relief.