Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Regularize Dismissal Period of Police ASI; Says Gross Negligence Led to Escape of “Dreaded” Undertrial Prisoner
Case Name: Shish Pal (through LRs) vs. State of Haryana & Others
Date of Judgment: 01 December 2025
Citation: CWP-4860-2018
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to interfere with the order rejecting regularization of the dismissal period of a police ASI, holding that the petitioner’s gross negligence enabled a hardened criminal to escape custody, and the punishment imposed already reduced by the appellate authority to compulsory retirement was the most lenient possible. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to treat the dismissal period as qualifying service.
Summary: The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, was part of a four-member escort party assigned to produce an undertrial Manoj, a habitual offender involved in numerous serious crimes before the Rohini Court. The prisoner was allowed to travel in a private car arranged by his associates and was taken to a hotel in Dwarka, where he escaped. The police party fabricated a story claiming the escape occurred at Rajiv Chowk, Gurugram, during a bus transfer, but inquiry revealed the account to be false. It was established that despite being armed, the police officials did not use their weapons and violated escort protocol by diverting to an unrelated location.
The disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from service. On appeal, a lenient view was taken and the dismissal was converted into compulsory retirement. The period of absence from 30 July 2008 to 30 May 2009 was treated as non-duty, with no salary payable for that duration. The petitioner, later acquitted in the related criminal trial, sought to have this period regularized.
The Court rejected the plea, holding that Rule 16.37 of the Punjab Police Rules clearly makes such gross negligence a dismissal-worthy offence. Although Rule 16.24 inquiry was not conducted in its strict form, a detailed fact-finding exercise was carried out, and the appellate authority had already extended the maximum indulgence by modifying the punishment. The petitioner, having completed 33 years of service, had received pension and all retiral benefits permissible in law, but could not demand regularization of the period during which he bore responsibility for a serious security lapse.
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, with the Court holding that no ground existed to disturb the disciplinary or appellate orders. The petitioner was not entitled to count the dismissal period as qualifying service, and the authority’s decision stood affirmed.