Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 884

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.
Manjeet Kaur – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO.9272 of 2018
Decided On : 08-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Bikramjit Singh Bajwa, Advocate; For the Petitioner
For the Respondent:Mr. Deepanjay Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab

Dismissal of a police officer must consider length of service and pension rights, and should only occur for gravest misconduct or cumulative misconduct.

Headnote:(A) Punjab Police Rules, 1934 - Rule 16.2 - Dismissal of police officer - Dismissal was ordered based on absence from duty, but the authority failed to consider the length of service and entitlement to pension - The deceased employee had completed 19 years of service and was eligible for pension - The matter is remanded for reconsideration of pension entitlement. (Paras 6, 11, 14)

(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - The disciplinary authority must consider the length of service and past conduct before imposing dismissal - The absence from duty alone does not warrant dismissal without considering the employee's overall service record. (Paras 10, 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner seeks to set aside the dismissal order of her husband, a police officer, who was dismissed for absence from duty after 19 years of service. The dismissal occurred shortly before his death.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority did not consider the deceased's length of service or pension entitlement, which are mandatory under the rules.

Issues: The main issues were whether the dismissal was justified given the employee's length of service and whether the disciplinary authority considered all relevant factors.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that dismissal for absence must consider the employee's entire service record and that the authority must adhere to the rules regarding pension eligibility.

Result: The matter is remanded to reconsider the pension entitlement.

JUDGMENT

Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 25.06.2013 (Annexure P-2) whereby husband of the petitioner was dismissed from service and order dated 23.01.2017 (Annexure P-4) whereby appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of delay as well as merits.

2. Gurinder Singh-husband of the petitioner joined Punjab Police on 01.04.1992 as Constable. He was having two sons who passed away and he met with an accident. The wife of the said employee also passed away and he solemnized second marriage with petitioner on 17.04.2002. These circumstances led the said employee to remain absent from duty. The said employee remained absent from duty from 18.09.2011 to 02.11.2011 and he reported to respondent-department on 03.11.2011. On account of absence from duty for one month and sixteen days, the respondent-department initiated an inquiry against the said employee. The Inquiry Officer in its report dated 28.11.2012 (Annexure P-6) found the said employee guilty of absence from duty. The Commissioner of Police, Amritsar vide order dated 24.05.2013 (Annexure P-2) ordered to dismiss the said employee from service. The employee passed away on 31.07.2013 i.e. within two months from the date of dismissal from service. The petitioner being wife of the said employee preferred an appeal before the competent authority which came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.01.2017 (Annexure P-4) passed by Director General of Police, Law & Order, Punjab.

3. Mr. Bikramjit Singh Bajwa, Advocate submits that respondent-department initiated proceedings against husband of the petitioner alleging absence from duty for one month & sixteen days and he was dismissed considering his past record. The deceased employee was suffering from mental sickness because of loss of his children and wife, thus, he could not even pursue his case. The inquiry proceedings were conduced ex-parte and order of dismissal was also passed ex-parte. He passed away within 2 months from the date of his order of dismissal. The respondent-department has power to dismiss an employee in terms of Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short 1934 Rules'), however, power can be exercised subject to circumstances and conditions enumerated therein. The husband of the petitioner remained in service for 19 years and respondent-department without considering length of service as well as his entitlement to pension, has passed the impugned order of dismissal from service.

4. Per contra, Mr. Deepanjay Sharma, learned State counsel submits that husband of the petitioner, on three earlier occasions, was also dismissed from service though every time he was reinstated taking a lenient view. In total, on seven occasions, he was subjected to minor or major punishments. The disciplinary authority considering past record of the deceased employee came to a conclusion that he deserves to be dismissed from service.

5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels for both sides and perused the record with their able assistance.

6. The husband of the petitioner was dismissed from service in terms of Rule 16.2 of 1934 Rules, thus, it inevitable to look at said Rules, which is reproduced as below:-

"16.2. Dismissal. - (1) Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. In making such an award regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension.

(2) If the conduct of an enrolled police officer leads to his conviction on a criminal charge and he is sentenced to imprisonment, he shall be dismissed :

Provided that a punishing authority may, in an exceptional case involving manifestly extenuating circumstances for reasons to be recorded and with the prior approval of the next higher authority impose any punishment other t