JUDGMENT :

NAMIT KUMAR, J. 

1. The instant Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the State of Punjab, impugning the judgment and decree dated 30.04.1994, passed by the trial Court, whereby the suit of the respondent/plaintiff has been decreed and the order of dismissal has been set aside, and he has been held entitled for reinstatement in service. Challenge is also made to the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2000, passed by the First Appellate Court, whereby the judgment passed by the trial Court has been modified only to the extent that the respondent/plaintiff shall not be entitled to back wages with effect from 01.09.1989 till the filing of the suit in the trial Court.

2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff was enrolled as Constable on 24.08.1978 in the Punjab Police, Jalandhar Cantt. He sought leave on 25.08.1989 till 31.08.1989, which was duly sanctioned by the competent authority. However, thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff did not resume his duties due to alleged illness and was placed under suspension on 26.10.1989 with effect from 31.08.1989 (Ex.P1). The respondent/plaintiff was treated as absent from duty for the period from 01.09.1989 to 03.01.1990, which was followed by issuance of a chargesheet and the holding of a regular departmental enquiry. In the departmental enquiry, he was held guilty and dismissed from service, vide order dated 26.07.1990 (Ex.P2) passed by Commandant, 27^th Battalion, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt. Without exhausting departmental remedies of filing appeal and revision, he preferred to file a suit for declaration before the Civil Court which has been decreed, vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.1994, on the ground that the absence from service is not a gravest act of misconduct and the fact that the period of absence has been treated as duty period without wages. The said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was upheld by the First Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 01.06.2000, with the modification that the respondent/plaintiff shall not be entitled to back wages with effect from 01.09.1989 till the filing of the suit.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/State argues that the respondent, who was working on the post of Constable in Police, absented himself without there being any justifiable reason and on account of said absence from duty, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent/plaintiff and after proving the allegations of unauthorized absence from duty, the punishment from dismissal of service was imposed and though the trial Court held that the disciplinary proceedings were validly held but the relief has been granted to the respondent/plaintiff only on the ground that the absence from duty cannot be treated as grievous act of misconduct so as to impose the punishment of dismissal. He further submits that the said view of the trial Court, which has been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court, with the modification that the respondent/plaintiff shall not be entitled to back wages with effect from 01.09.1989 till the filing of the suit, is contrary to the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Singh : 1996(2) SCT 139

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the enquiry proceedings against the respondent/plaintiff were held in accordance with law but mere absence from duty cannot be treated as grievous act of misconduct and further that once the period of absence have already been regularized, the same will amount to wipe out the absence period itself hence, the judgment and decrees of the Courts below are perfectly valid and legal and liable to be upheld.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

6. The issue as to whether the absence from service is a gravest act of misconduct or not, has been considered by the Hon'b