Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

The present appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment dated 18.11.2025, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed CWPOA No. 5173 of 2019, filed by the present appellant and has further upheld the order dated 25.08.2010, discharging the appellant from the post of Lady Constable, during her training period. Besides the aforesaid, order dated 22.04.2015, passed on the representation made by the appellant against the order of discharge dated 25.08.2010, has also been upheld.

The appellant had been appointed as a Lady Constable on 01.01.2010 (appointment letter is at page 77 of the paper book). Thereafter, she was sent to Training Center, Sakoh. While under training, the appellant proceeded on medical leave, on 14.02.2010. The appellant was permitted to do so by the Commandant 2nd Indian Reserve Battalion. However, the appellant did not resume training and as a result whereof, the appellant was marked absent from training w.e.f. 19.02.2010.

The appellant was directed to resume training vide wireless message dated 22.02.2010. However, on 22.02.2010 itself a telegram was received in the office of the Commandant 2nd Indian Reserve Battalion from the appellant for extension of leave on medical ground. The appellant resumed training on 07.04.2010, after absenting for about 47 days from training.

With respect to her absence from training, the appellant produced three medical certificates, first w.e.f. 18.02.2010 to 02.03.2010, issued by the MO PHC, Bhadsali, District Una, second medical certificate advising rest w.e.f. 03.03.2010 to 09.03.2010, was issued by the MO, Kumar Nursing Home, Una. Other than the aforesaid, a third medical certificate advising rest w.e.f. 10.03.2010 to 06.04.2010 was issued by MO, New Saini Hospital, Hoshiarpur. The same are placed on record from pages 79 till 91. In the enquiry report, medical certificates issued by the Private Hospitals have been ignored on account of the fact that the same are not approved by the government. Besides in all three certificates it has been held in the enquiry report that the present appellant is affected by different medical problems and in the response filed to the summary of allegations a different version of a medical problem was forthcoming.

On account of her aforesaid willful absence, the appellant was repatriated from the Training Center Sakoh to her parent unit i.e. 5th India Reserve Battalion vide order dated 07.04.2010. In pursuance thereto, the appellant reported for training on 08.04.2010. Thereafter, on 16.04.2010, the appellant proceeded on sanctioned four days casual leave and one day station leave.

In the aforesaid attending circumstances, the appellant was to report back at Battalion Headquarter on 22.04.2010. However, the appellant did not turn up on the conclusion of the sanctioned period. Vide wireless messages dated 24.04.2010 and 06.05.2010, the appellant was directed to resume duty. The appellant failed to join. On account of her willful absence a departmental enquiry was ordered against her by the Commandant 5th Indian Reserve Battalion, vide order dated 28.05.2010 and the appellant was placed under suspension.

The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. In the enquiry, the appellant had submitted a response to the summary of allegations. The same were duly considered by the Inquiry Officer. However, to the formal charge-sheet, no reply was filed by the appellant. The appellant had requested that her reply to summary allegations be considered as reply to the charge-sheet. At the enquiry, the defense of the appellant was that the appellant was under acute medical depression, for which, she was being treated by a “Tantrik”.

In the enquiry, the appellant did not produce any defense witness despite opportunity being a