Unauthorized Absence by Police Constable Is ‘Gravest Misconduct’: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Dismissal Order
Case Name: State of Punjab and Others v. Labh Singh (now deceased) through his LRs
Date of Judgment: 17 February 2026
Citation: RSA-2734-1995
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Namit Kumar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that unauthorized absence from duty by a member of a disciplined force constitutes a gravest act of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. Where a constable remained absent on two occasions, including a prolonged absence of about seven months, the disciplinary authority was justified in imposing dismissal from service. The Court further held that the absence of specific use of the expression “gravest misconduct” in the dismissal order is not fatal if the substance of the finding reflects such conclusion.
Summary: The State of Punjab preferred the present Regular Second Appeal challenging the judgment dated 06.06.1995 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, which had set aside the dismissal order dated 25.05.1989 and the appellate order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, and had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-constable .
The plaintiff was enrolled as a Constable on 02.09.1979. He remained absent from duty on two occasions—first for about one month and subsequently for about seven months. A regular departmental enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding him guilty. After issuance of show cause notices and affording opportunity of hearing, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala dismissed him from service on 25.05.1989. His departmental appeal was also rejected .
The Trial Court dismissed the civil suit, holding that the enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and that no procedural illegality had been established. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the decree mainly on the ground that the punishing authority had not recorded a clear-cut finding that the misconduct amounted to the “gravest act” as required under Rule 16.2(1) of the Rules .
Before the High Court, the principal issue revolved around interpretation of Rule 16.2(1), which provides that dismissal shall be awarded only for gravest acts of misconduct or as cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service, with due regard to length of service and claim to pension .
The Court noted that the plaintiff’s total absence amounted to 06 months, 24 days, 21 hours and 05 minutes. He was afforded multiple opportunities to respond to show cause notices but failed to submit any reply or appear before the punishing authority .
Relying upon precedents including State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh and State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Singh, the Court observed that repeated unauthorized absence by a police official reasonably leads to a conclusion of incorrigibility and constitutes gravest misconduct. The absence of the precise “mantra” of gravest misconduct in the dismissal order was held not determinative, as the substance of the order clearly reflected such finding .
The contention that the plaintiff had rendered about ten years of service and that his pension claim ought to have been considered was rejected. The Court held that he had not completed ten years of qualifying service and was not eligible for pension in any case .
On overall consideration, the High Court found that the First Appellate Court erred in interfering with the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court and in substituting its view on quantum of punishment.
Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree dated 06.06.1995 passed by the First Appellate Court were set aside, and the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the suit was restored.