IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :- 29.01.2026 Pronounced on: 16.02.2026 Uploaded on: 16.02.2026 State of Punjab & Another … Appellants Versus Sukhmander Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. I.S.Kingra, Senior DAG, Punjab for the appellants Mr. D.S.Bhinder, Advocate for the respondent.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred as “appeal”) has been preferred by the defendant-appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.04.1998 passed by the learned District Judge, Bathinda, whereby the suit of the respondent-plaintiff was decreed by setting aside the order of dismissal from the service passed by the competent authority and the judgment and decree dated 14.09.1996 of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda was reversed.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The respondent-plaintiff was appointed as a Constable (No.1032/Bathinda) in the Punjab Police and was serving in the department at the relevant time. During the course of his service, the respondent-plaintiff remained wilfully absent from duty for 4 Months and 19 days on different periods without obtaining prior permission or sanction from the competent authority. As the unauthorised absence continued, the department initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent-plaintiff under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. A charge-sheet was served upon him alleging unauthorised absence from duty. The respondent-plaintiff participated in the departmental enquiry. Upon completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the charge of unauthorised absence to be proved against the respondent. After considering the enquiry report and the explanation furnished by the respondent-plaintiff, the competent disciplinary authority (appellant no.2/defendant no.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda) passed an impugned order (Order No.38-42/802 dated 15.01.1992) imposing the penalty of dismissal from service. While passing the said order, the authority also directed that the period during which the respondent-plaintiff remained absent shall be treated as non-duty period, keeping in view the respondent-plaintiff’s pensionary entitlements. Aggrieved by the impugned order of dismissal, the respondent-plaintiff availed of the departmental remedies available to him by filing an appeal and thereafter a revision. Both the departmental appeal and revision were dismissed by the competent authorities, thereby affirming the order of dismissal.

3. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff instituted a civil suit challenging the impugned order of dismissal as well as the orders passed in departmental appeal and revision. In the suit, the respondent-plaintiff contended that once the period of absence had been treated as non-duty period, the department could not have imposed the extreme penalty of dismissal, as such treatment amounted to condonation or regularisation of the absence. On the basis of these assertions, the respondent-plaintiff sought setting aside of the dismissal order along with consequential service benefits. The appellants-defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement, asserting that the respondent-plaintiff had remained unauthorisedly absent, that a regular departmental enquiry had been conducted in accordance with law, and that the punishment of dismissal was justified. It was further pleaded that the treatment of the absence period as non-duty did not amount to condonation or regularisation and was only intended to regulate service and pensionary consequences.

4. Upon a meticulous examination of the pleadings and the competing claims of the parties, the learned Trial Court proceeded to frame the following issues for determination, with a view to secure a precise, coherent, and legally structured adjudication of the controversies arising in the matter:-

1. Whether The Order No.38-42/802 Dated 15.1.92 issued by the Defendent No.2 And f