IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 07.01.2025 EX CONSTABLE JOGINDER SINGH …. PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS …. RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present : Mr.Harjeet Singh Minhas, Advocate and Mr. Rajat Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of;

(i) order dated 30.06.2013 (Annexure P-14) whereby he was dismissed from service;

(ii) orders dated 26.05.2014 (Annexure P-16), 23.04.2015/11.05.2015 (Annexure P-17) and 06.02.2019 (Annexure P-22) whereby appeal, revision and mercy petition respectively filed by him were dismissed.

2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police on 01.02.1992. On account of repeated absence from duty, he was subjected to punishment on multiple occasions which included stoppage of his 18 years’ annual increments, 05 times warnings and 10 times physical punishment. He was dismissed from service vide order dated 04.10.2010. He preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which vide order dated 20.05.2011 set aside order of dismissal from service and awarded punishment of stoppage of 03 annual increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner did not mend his behaviour despite lenient view taken by Appellate Authority. He again absented himself from duty for 46 days in December’ 2011 and 41 days in February’ 2012. On account of repeated absence from duty, SSP Patiala vide order dated 30.06.2013 ordered to dismiss him from service. He unsuccessfully preferred appeal before 1^st Appellate Authority and thereafter 2^nd Appellate Authority. He also preferred representation before Home Secretary who rejected his claim.

3. Mr. Harjeet Singh Minhas, Advocate submits that the petitioner had worked with respondent for 21 years and order of dismissal has deprived him from valuable right of pension. The order of dismissal from service needs to be converted into compulsory retirement or some other punishment. The petitioner was absent from duty because of his family circumstances. His son and wife have passed away and on account of these circumstances, he was absent from duty.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab, who on advance notice is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and waives service.

6. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up today itself for final disposal.

7. Mr. Dhir submits that the petitioner was habitual absentee. He was multiple time subjected to punishment. On the earlier occasion, he was dismissed from service, however, Appellate Authority taking lenient view ordered to reinstate him. Despite orders of Appellate Authority, he did not mend his behaviour which compelled the Disciplinary Authority to dismiss him from service.

8. I have heard the arguments of counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Concededly the petitioner prior to passing of impugned order was subjected to stoppage of 18 years annual increments, 05 times warning and 10 times physical punishment. The Appellate Authority on the earlier occasion, vide order dated 20.05.2011 restored his service, however, he did not mend his behaviour. He remained absent from duty subsequent to aforesaid order. This shows that the petitioner was habitual offender.

10. Supreme Court in Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India and others, (2023) 9 SCC 100 while adverting to disciplinary action in case of absence from duty has held that the Court should not set aside order of dismissal where delinquent is part of Armed Forces and remained absent from duty. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as:

“11. It is apparent from the above table that the appellant was a habitual offender. There were four red ink entries and one black ink entry against him before the present incident cited at Serial No. (f) above. Such gross indiscipline on the part of the appellant who