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

Date of Decision: 13.10.2025 Raj Singh (Now Deceased Through LRs)

...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Sandeep Singh Sangwan, Advocate and Mr. Rajvir Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, DAG, Haryana.

****

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 19.03.2001 whereby he was dismissed from service;

(ii) Order dated 04.01.2002 whereby appeal against order of dismissal was rejected;

(iii) Order dated 09.07.2002 whereby revision was dismissed; and (iv) Order dated 03.10.2002 whereby mercy petition was dismissed.

2. The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable on 02.12.1988. He was promoted as Head Constable in 1993. He was dismissed from service vide order dated 19.03.2001. He unsuccessfully challenged order of dismissal before Appellate Authority. He further filed revision before Director General of Police (DGP) which was dismissed vide order dated 09.07.2002. His mercy appeal also came to be dismissed by Home Department.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had 12 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 length of service as well as petitioner’s entitlement to pension. The absence from duty does not fall within expression ‘gravest act of misconduct’.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

5. From the perusal of impugned order, 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.

Details of his past punishments/absence are reproduced as below:

6. 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 was a member of the Armed Forces could not be countenanced. He remained out of line far too often for seeking condonation of his absence of leave, this time, for a prolonged period of 108 days which if accepted, would have sent a wrong signal to others in service. One must be mindful of the fact that discipline is the implicit hallmark of the Armed Forces and a non-negotiable condition of service.

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

18. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment Madan Prasad v.

Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine AFT 887 passed by the AFT. The appellant had been taking too many liberties during his service and despite several punishments awarded to him earlier, ranging from imposition of fine to rigorous imprisonment, he did not mend his ways. This was his sixth infraction for the very same offence. Therefore, he did not deserve any leniency by infliction of a punishment lesser than that which has been awarded to him.”

7. Scope of interference while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India in disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The Court has no power to look into quantum of sentence/punishment unless and until Court finds that sentence awarded is disproportionate to alleged offence. It is further settled proposition of law that High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India can look into t