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

Date of Decision: 28.10.2025 PYARE LAL ...Petitioner Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. …Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, 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. Enquiry report dated 15.10.2012;

ii. Order dated 08.12.2012, whereby he was dismissed from service;

iii. Order dated 16.04.2013, whereby his appeal was dismissed; and iv. Order dated 30.05.2014 whereby his revision was dismissed

2. The petitioner joined Haryana Police as Constable in 1985. On 22.05.2022, petitioner met with an accident and suffered head injury. He got admitted in SMS Medical College & Hospital, Jaipur, Department of Neurosurgery. He was chargesheeted on 26.01.2012 for absence from duty for a period of 1 year 3 months and 4 days. He failed to join the disciplinary proceedings and was proceeded ex parte. On 15.10.2012, charges levelled against him stood proved. Respondent No.4 issued show cause notice dated 17.10.2012 proposing dismissal from service. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters Faridabad vide order dated 08.12.2012 ordered to dismiss him from service. He preferred appeal as well as revision which were dismissed vide orders dated

16.04.2013 and 30.05.2014, respectively.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing order of dismissal from service, length of service of the petitioner and his claim towards pension was not considered by the authorities.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioner was a habitual absentee. He was subjected to punishment on three earlier occasions. He was part of Police Force, thus, no leniency is warranted. He did not participate in the departmental proceedings despite sufficient opportunities and at this stage his claim that he was suffering from head injury and undergoing treatment cannot be countenanced.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

6. As per Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (in short ‘PPR’), a Police Officer may be dismissed from service for gravest act of misconduct or cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. The said Rule further provides that in passing award of dismissal from service, the Authority shall take care of length of service of the offender and his claim to pension.

7. Rule 16.2 of PPR for the ready reference 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 severe, shall, if such sentence is not quashed on appeal or revision, be dismissed. An enrolled police officer sentenced by a criminal court to a punishment of fine or simple i