328 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision: 18.02.2026 Harvinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Arun Jindal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders passed by departmental authorities whereby he has been dismissed from service.

2. Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner and filed his power of attorney. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place on the case file.

3. The petitioner joined Punjab Police Force as Constable. The respondent-department initiated regular departmental inquiry against him alleging absence from duty. He was found guilty in the departmental inquiry. He was issued show cause notice proposing punishment of dismissal from service. He was dismissed from service vide order dated 04.03.2003 passed by Disciplinary Authority. He preferred an appeal which came to be rejected by Appellate Authority vide order dated

28.05.2003. He filed revision which came to be dismissed vide order dated 26.07.2005 passed by Director General of Police

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had five years' service to his credit still was dismissed from service on the ground of absence from duty. The punishment awarded was harsh. The respondent did not consider his length of service. The absence from duty does not fall within expression 'gravest act of misconduct', thus, order of dismissal from service was bad and contrary to Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short ‘PPR’).

5. Learned State Counsel reiterated findings of the departmental authorities and submitted that there is no ground to interfere with awarded punishment.

6. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

7. From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner was a habitual absentee and was subjected to punishment on multiple occasions.

His past record was duly considered by authorities which reads as:

"(A) 8 days absence period treated as non duty period vide O. B. No. 166/97.

(B) 12 days absence period treated as non duty period vide O. B. No. 166/97.

(C) 11 days absence period treated as non duty period vide O.B. No.206/97.

(D) 21 days absence period treated as non duty period vide O.B. No.228/97.

(E) 50 days absence period treated as non duty period vide O.B. No.28/98.

(F) 9 days absence period treated as non duty period vide O.B. No.79/98.

(G) 45 days absence period treated as non duty period vide O.B. No.100/98.

(H) Warned and 7 days absence period as non duty period vide Order No.10314-18/Reader dated 18-06-1998.

(I) 3 years approved service was forfeited with Permanent effect and absence period for 135 days treated as non duty period vide order no.80-84/ST, dated 22-01-1999.

(J) 67 days absence period treated as non duty period vide O.B. No.16/99.

(K) 3 days absence period treated as non duty period vide O.B. No.98/99.

(L) 12 days absence period treated as non duty period vide O.B. No.197/99.

(M) 47 days absence period treated as non duty period vide O.B. No.27/2K.

(N) 42 days absence period treated as non duty period vide O.B. No.238/99.

(O) 1 day absence period treated as non duty period vide O.B. No.27/2K.

(P) 103 days absence period treated as non duty period vide O.B. No.103/2K.

(Q) Two annual increments were stopped with permanent effect and 85 days absence period treated as non duty period vide order no.1923-28/ST dated 15-10-1999.

(R) Two annual increments were stopped with permanent effect and 175 days absence period treated as non duty period vide O.B. no.53/01.

(S) 45 days absence period treated as non duty period vide O.B. No.42/2001.

(T) 1 day absence period treated as non duty period vide O.B. No.60/01.

(U) 68 days absence period treated as non duty period vide O.B. No.133/20