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

Date of Decision: 12.12.2025 Karaj Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Sarbjeet Singh Khaira, 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) Show cause notice dated 25.10.2004;

(ii) Order dated 22.06.2005 whereby he was dismissed from service;

(iii) Order dated 22.06.2009 whereby his appeal was dismissed;

(iv) Order dated 22.12.2009 whereby his revision was dismissed;

and (v) Order dated 24.07.2015 whereby appeal against orders dated

22.06.2009 and 22.12.2009 was dismissed by Director General of Police.

2. The petitioner was part of Punjab Police. He was subjected to departmental inquiry wherein he was found guilty of misconduct of absence from duty. He was dismissed from service. He unsuccessfully preferred appeal followed by revision. He also filed petitions before DGP and Home Department.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that petitioner was absent from duty because of illness. He was absent on account of reasons beyond his control. Punishment of dismissal from service was very harsh. Lenient view may be taken.

4. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was habitual absentee. As per service record, he was absent for approximately 1995 days during his service on different occasions. He has been awarded 19 bad entries during his service. He was awarded punishment of forfeiture of approved service with permanent effect for his willful absence from duty. He remained absent for approximately 13 years out of his 14 years’ total service.

5. 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.”

6. 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 the procedure followed by authorities. In case, it is found that enquiry officer or disciplinary authority has not considered any evidence on record or misread the evidence