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

Date of Decision: 27.02.2026 Sunita Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Pardeep Sehrawat, Advocate and Ms. Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate (through V.C.)

for the petitioner.

Mr. Akshit Pathania, AAG, Haryana.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders passed by departmental authorities whereby her husband has been awarded punishment of dismissal from service.

2. Mr. Pardeep Sehrawat, 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’s husband (hereinafter referred to as ‘Employee’) joined Police Force as Constable on 31.08.1992. He was never promoted. In 2018, the respondent initiated departmental inquiry against him alleging that he remained absent from duty from 07.01.2018 to 07.08.2018 (total 212 days). The inquiry officer found him guilty of alleged misconduct.

4. The disciplinary authority issued him show cause notice dated 25.10.2018 proposing punishment of dismissal from service. Superintendent of Police (SP), Jhajjar vide order dated 03.12.2018 awarded him punishment of dismissal from service. He preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by Appellate Authority vide order dated 04.04.2019. He preferred revision. He passed away during the pendency of revision. The Director General of Police (DGP) vide order dated 14.10.2020 dismissed his revision.

5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that punishment awarded by authorities is disproportionate to alleged misconduct. The employee had 27 years’ service to his credit at the time of passing of impugned order. He was dismissed on the ground of absence from duty. He was not involved in any criminal activity. His conduct by no stretch of imagination could be called as gravest mis-conduct. The impugned order was in the teeth of Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (in short ‘PPR’).

6. Learned State counsel reiterates findings of the departmental authorities and submits that no interference is warranted. The employee belongs to a disciplined force, thus, his conduct must be above board. He is bound to maintain high standards of discipline.

7. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

8. The petitioner is claiming that employee’s conduct was neither gravest misconduct nor continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service, thus, he could not be dismissed from service. The argument of the petitioner needs to be examined in the light of Rule 16.2 of PPR 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 or 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.

Explanation.- For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the following shall, inter alia, be regarded as gravest acts of misconduct in respect of a police officer, facing disciplinary action:

(i) indulging in spying or smuggling activities;

(ii) disrupting the means of transport or of communication;

(iii) damaging public property;

(iv) causing indiscipline amongst fellow policemen;

(v) promoting feeling of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language;

(vi) going on strike or mass casual leave or resorting to mass abstentions;

(vii) spreading disaffection against the Government; and (viii) causing riots and the like (2) An enrolled police officer sentenced judicially to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month or to any other punishment not less