Supreme Court upholds dismissal for repeated unauthorised absence, holds past misconduct only reinforced penalty

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi heard the appeal by the State of Punjab against the High Court of Punjab and Haryana’s order setting aside disciplinary dismissal of a constable. The appeal raised the narrow question whether the disciplinary authority impermissibly based the dismissal on past misconduct that had not been disclosed in the show‑cause notice and whether the punishment fell foul of Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.

The Court allowed the State’s appeal and set aside the High Court judgment, holding that the dismissal was lawful. The Court accepted that the disciplinary authority had treated the proven unauthorised absence of 37 days as a “gravest act of misconduct” warranting dismissal under the first limb of Rule 16.2(1), and that the reference to earlier incidents was only to “add weight to the decision” and was not the effective reason for dismissal. The Court noted that the employee had been earlier punished on multiple occasions and had not availed opportunities to cross‑examine prosecution witnesses or to produce defence evidence. The Court quoted the rule that “Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service,” and reproduced its central reasoning. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court therefore concluded that the order of dismissal was within the first part of Rule 16.2(1) and complied with principles of natural justice.

Background The respondent was appointed a constable on 4 August 1989 and was posted to a Commando battalion. He was alleged to have remained absent without leave from 4 April 1994 to 12 May 1994 (about 37 days). A departmental enquiry followed: a chargesheet dated 27 July 1994 was served; prosecution witnesses were examined, the respondent did not cross‑examine them and declined to produce defence witnesses. A show‑cause notice dated 25 May 1995 invited explanation; no reply was filed and the disciplinary authority on 3 May 1996 dismissed him from service, recording that he “has neither interest in service nor he is capable of serving in Police Department,” and noting prior periods of absence and earlier punishments including forfeiture of service for earlier unauthorised absences.

The respondent challenged dismissal by suit for declaration and mandamus; trial and first‑instance appellate courts dismissed the suit. The High Court, relying on State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda, held that the disciplinary authority had impermissibly relied upon past misconduct not set out in the show‑cause notice and set aside the orders, granting declaration but denying back wages on the ground of an affidavit by the respondent. The State appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviewed authorities including India Marine, Bishamber Das Dogra, Mohd. Yunus Khan (distinguished) and cases interpreting Rule 16.2(1). It found that the proven unauthorised absence was a grave misconduct independently warranting dismissal and that mere reference to prior misconduct did not convert the order into one founded on undisclosed past charges. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment and dismissed the respondent’s suit; parties were directed to bear their own costs. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2012 (Reportable: 2025 INSC 1056) Case Title: State of Punjab and Others v. Ex. Constable Satpal Singh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment