Lack Of Discipline By Disciplined Forces Constitute 'Gravest Act Of Misconduct': Punjab And Haryana High Court

A single judge bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising of Justice Namit Kumar while deciding an appeal in the case of State of Punjab and Ors vs Ex. Constable Amarjit Singh has held that discipline is the first requirement of a disciplined force and the very act of absence from duty by a member of a disciplined force is gravest act of misconduct under Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules (PPR), where the term “misconduct” includes any wrongful act which is disruptive of discipline.

Background Facts

Amarjit Singh (Respondent) joined as a Constable in PAP Jalandhar Cantt and was absent from duty for a period of 44 days and 23 hours due to illness. The punishing authority (Authority) did not approved the medical leave applied by the respondent. The authority further directed to conduct a departmental enquiry, where the enquiry officer recorded evidence without serving any notice to the respondent and held him guilty. Thereafter, the authority passed an order of dismissal. The respondent filed an appeal against the dismissal order to the D.I.G. of Police, PAP Jalandhar Cantt, where D.I.G. dismissed the appeal.

Aggrieved by the same, respondent filed a suit, contending that the proceedings were initiated against him without giving any chance of hearing. Further respondent contended that the statements of witnesses were recorded without oath, which violated Rule 16.2 of PPR. Also respondent produced the medical certificates regarding his illness, which were ignored by the punishing authority.

On the other hand, it was contended by the authority that no application was made by the respondent for medical leave. The authority further alleged that the respondent was dismissed from service on the ground of wilful absence which was a grave misconduct in the disciplined force. The trial Court passed the judgment in favour of the respondent.

Now aggrieved by the same, the State (Appellant) preferred an appeal before the lower Appellate Court, which got dismissed. Thus appellant filed the second appeal.

The appellant contended that the Trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court did not considered the fact that absence of a member of the disciplined force from duty is a gravest act of misconduct.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that the absence of respondent from duty for 44 days while undergoing basic training, without giving any leave or information show the lack of discipline, which was the first requirement of a disciplined force. The court relied on the case of State of Punjab and others v. Chamkaur Singh wherein the Punjab And Haryana High Court held that the act of absence from duty by a member of disciplined force without giving any information shows the lack of discipline. The court also relied on the case of State of U.P. and others vs Ashok Kumar Singh and another wherein the Supreme Court held that disciplined force demand strict adherence to the rules and procedures more than any other department.

The court further observed that the term “misconduct” includes any wrongful act which is disruptive of discipline, thus the act of absence from duty for period of 44 days by a member of a disciplined force was gravest act of misconduct.

The court held that both the Trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court made a mistake by interfering in the order of punishment passed by the punishing authority,

With the aforesaid observations, the appeal was allowed and the judgments passed by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court were set aside.

Case No. : Civil Writ Petition No. RSA-4995 of 1999

Case Name: State of Punjab and Ors vs Ex. Constable Amarjit Singh

Counsel for the Appellant(s): Mr. Jai Narain, AAG Punjab

Counsel for the Respondent(s) : None

Click Here To Read/Download Order