Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Discharge of Lady Constable for Willful Absence During Training

Court Decision and Context

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, in a judgment delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma on November 18, 2025, dismissed a writ petition filed by Sapna Devi, a former Lady Constable. The court upheld her discharge from service under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules (PPR), applicable in Himachal Pradesh, citing willful and prolonged absence during her mandatory training period. The case, originally filed as Original Application No. 1313 of 2015 before the State Administrative Tribunal and transferred to the High Court as CWPOA No. 5173 of 2019, sought quashing of the discharge order dated August 25, 2010, and reinstatement with consequential benefits. The bench emphasized that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited and does not extend to re-appreciating evidence.

Case Overview

Sapna Devi was appointed as a Lady Constable in the 5th Indian Reserve Battalion (Mahila), Bassi, District Bilaspur, on January 1, 2010. As part of her probationary period, she was required to undergo constabulary training at the 2nd IRBn, Sakoh, District Kangra. The core issue revolved around her unauthorized absences: first, from February 19, 2010, to April 6, 2010 (48 days), where she provided medical certificates for only 13 days; and second, from April 22, 2010, onward (initially 39 days until suspension on May 28, 2010), with no supporting medical or other evidence. These absences led to suspension, a departmental inquiry under Rule 16.24 PPR, and eventual discharge for being "unlikely to prove an efficient police officer."

The petitioner argued that her absences were due to illness and unavoidable circumstances, including treatment by tantriks, and that the department failed to consider her medical certificates adequately. She appealed the discharge to the Director General of Police in November 2014, which was rejected on April 22, 2015, after a hearing. The writ petition challenged both orders, claiming procedural lapses and non-willful absence.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner's Arguments:
Represented by Advocates Onkar Jairath, Piyush Mehta, and M.A. Safee, Sapna Devi contended that her initial 48-day absence was largely illness-related, supported by partial medical certificates, and the subsequent absence stemmed from unavoidable reasons beyond her control. She claimed the departmental inquiry was unfair, as it did not appreciate her health issues or alternative treatments, and sought reinstatement, highlighting her financial hardship as a poor woman on the verge of starvation. In rejoinder, she asserted that no cogent evidence proved willfulness and reiterated that the absence was not intentional.

Respondents' Arguments:
The State of Himachal Pradesh, through Additional Advocate General Navlesh Verma, defended the actions in the reply affidavit filed by the Director General of Police. They highlighted that medical certificates covered only 13 days of the first absence, leaving 35 days unexplained. For the second absence, no documentation was submitted despite notices dated April 24, 2010, and May 6, 2010, served via the Station House Officer, Haroli. The respondents stressed that the inquiry under Rule 16.24 PPR was conducted properly, charges of willful absence were proved, and the petitioner failed to respond to the show-cause notice dated August 6, 2010. Treatment by tantriks was deemed inadmissible. The four-year delay in appealing the 2010 discharge was also noted as a procedural lapse.

Legal Precedents and Principles Applied

The court extensively relied on Supreme Court precedents to delineate the narrow scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, rejecting the petitioner's plea to re-assess evidence.

• In Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610, the court reiterated that High Courts cannot act as appellate authorities or re-appreciate evidence, intervening only if the inquiry lacks competence, violates natural justice, or is based on no evidence or extraneous considerations.

• Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force v. Rajendra Kumar Dubey (2021) 14 SCC 735 reinforced that findings based on some legal evidence are final, and adequacy of evidence is not reviewable.

• State of Rajasthan v. Bhupendra Singh (2024 SCC Online SC 1908) clarified that courts should not reassess domestic inquiry evidence unless perverse or without basis.

• State of Punjab v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh (2025 SCC Online SC 1848) upheld dismissal for repeated absences in police service, emphasizing that non-compliance with rules or proved misconduct justifies penalty without interference.

The court distinguished quashing from mere sympathy, noting Rule 12.21 PPR allows discharge within three years of enrollment for inefficiency, with no appeal. It held the inquiry fair, charges proved, and absence willful due to lack of cogent evidence.

Pivotal Excerpt from Judgment:
"Once the petitioner had chosen to remain willful absent on two occasions then, it is for the petitioner to assert and establish that her absence was not willful. Nothing has been placed on record during the course of Departmental Inquiry that the absence was not willful but was on account of the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner either due to ailments based on Medical Certificate for entire period or other valid and reasonable grounds. Plea that the petitioner remained under treatment of Tantrik(s) cannot be accepted..."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the discharge order of August 25, 2010, and the appeal rejection of April 22, 2015. It directed parties to bear their own costs, disposing of all pending applications.

This ruling underscores the strict discipline required in police services, particularly during probationary training, and limits judicial interference in fair departmental inquiries. It serves as a precedent for handling absence-related misconduct under PPR in Himachal Pradesh and similar jurisdictions, emphasizing the burden on employees to substantiate non-willful absence with admissible evidence. For public servants, it highlights the risks of unexplained absences leading to irreversible discharge, while reinforcing procedural safeguards in inquiries.