Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Police Constable for Habitual Absenteeism, Terms It Gravest Misconduct for Uniformed Personnel
Case Name: Darshan Singh v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: October 13, 2025
Citation: CWP-30216-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the dismissal of a police constable for habitual absenteeism, holding that remaining absent from duty constitutes the gravest form of misconduct for a uniformed officer. Justice Jagmohan Bansal ruled that the petitioner’s dismissal, following multiple instances of unauthorized absence and repeated punishments, was lawful and proportionate. The Court reiterated that judicial interference in disciplinary matters under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is limited to cases of procedural illegality or perversity, and that High Courts cannot re-assess the quantum of punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate.
Summary: The petitioner, Darshan Singh, had joined the Haryana Police as a Constable in December 1988. He was dismissed from service on June 29, 2006, for remaining absent from duty without authorization for a cumulative period of 266 days. His departmental appeal and revision were dismissed on October 24, 2006, and August 11, 2011, respectively. A mercy petition filed in 2013 was also rejected in June 2023.
The petitioner argued that his dismissal was excessively harsh given his 18 years of service and that absence from duty did not amount to a “gravest act of misconduct.” He contended that the authorities failed to consider his long tenure and pension entitlement.
The Court examined the petitioner’s service record, which reflected repeated absences and multiple punishments, including stoppage of increments and leave without pay. Justice Bansal cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India (2023) 9 SCC 100 and a Division Bench decision in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (LPA-934-2023), both holding that unauthorized absence by a member of the armed or police forces constitutes a serious disciplinary breach. The Court observed that the petitioner had been penalized several times yet continued his indiscipline, leaving no scope for leniency.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the disciplinary, appellate, and revisional orders. It held that the authorities had followed due process, the inquiry was fair, and the punishment proportionate to the gravity of misconduct. The Court concluded that the petition was devoid of merit and required no interference.