J. K. MAHESHWARI, VIJAY BISHNOI
State Of Punjab – Appellant
Versus
C. Satpal Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIJAY BISHNOI, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the Judgment dated 04.08.2010 passed in R.S.A No. 3802 of 2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent was appointed as a Constable in the Punjab Armed Forces on 04.08.1989. In the year 1992, the respondent was transferred to the Commando Force and was posted at Bahadurgarh, Patiala Headquarter of the 2nd Commando Battalion. The respondent applied for five days leave, however, was granted leave only for one day. He proceeded to leave on 02.04.1994 but did not join his duties on 04.04.1994, and instead resumed his duties only on 12.05.1994. The allegation against the respondent was that he remained absent from 04.04.1994 to 12.05.1994, i.e., for around 37 days.
3. For the said unauthorized absence, the departmental enquiry was initiated and a chargesheet containing allegations along with a list of prosecution witnesses was served upon the respondent on 07.08.1994. During the enquiry, statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded, and an opportunity was granted to the respondent to cross-examine those witnesses. The respondent was al
State of Mysore vs. K. Manche Gowda
India Marine Service Private Ltd. vs. Their Workmen
Union of India & Ors. vs. Bishamber Das Dogra
Mohd. Yunus Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Director General, RPF & Ors. vs. Ch. Sai Babu
Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. vs. Uttam Manohar Nakate
Termination – If past conduct of an employee is basis for imposing punishment, department is obliged to disclose that his past record will also be taken into consideration while inflicting punishment....
Dismissal of a police officer must consider length of service and pension rights, as mandated by Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules.
Dismissal of a police officer must consider length of service and pension rights, and should only occur for gravest misconduct or cumulative misconduct.
Absence from duty for 44 days without leave constitutes gravest misconduct justifying dismissal in a disciplined force, and procedural claims of unfair treatment were insufficient to overturn the dis....
Unauthorized absence without evidence of willfulness cannot justify severe penalties like dismissal, reflecting a lack of proportionality in disciplinary actions.
The Court emphasized that while past conduct can influence punishment, it cannot serve as the sole basis for dismissal without it being specifically charged and substantiated.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.