Dismissal for repeated unauthorized absence by police personnel is neither procedurally infirm nor grossly disproportionate in habitual offender cases; High Court affirms prevailing Supreme Court standard and applies it to police service discipline. The judgment is binding precedent for all subordinate courts within jurisdiction, reinforcing strict standards of discipline in uniformed services.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | LPA/2274/2025 of ARSHAD Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC011196792025 |
| Date of Registration | 01-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Division Bench: ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.; ROHIT KAPOOR, J. |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Single Judge decision and Supreme Court precedent (Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India, (2023) 9 SCC 100) |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Disciplinary Proceedings |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that in cases of repeated unauthorized absence by members of a disciplined force, where the misconduct is habitual and prior punishments have not led to correction, dismissal from service does not violate principles of proportionality or suffer procedural infirmity. The Court emphasized that discipline is the hallmark of the armed/police forces and cannot be diluted. Prior misconduct and penalties can be considered in such exceptional circumstances. The rationale is reinforced by the Supreme Court’s decision in Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India (2023) 9 SCC 100. The appellate and revisional authorities duly considered all factual and procedural aspects before confirming dismissal. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India & Ors., (2023) 9 SCC 100 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | The necessity for a strict disciplinary standard in uniformed services, limited applicability of liberal/proportionality principles where habitual misconduct is established, correlation with Supreme Court guidance disallowing leniency for serial offenders. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant, a constable in Haryana Police, was dismissed after remaining absent on 42 occasions (totaling over 6 years) in 12 years of service, having already undergone major and minor punishments. Departmental proceedings were held ex parte due to his non-participation; medical evidence submitted was found questionable. His appeals and revision were dismissed, and the Single Judge refused interference. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court; all police/disciplined forces under the same legal regime. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and service tribunals dealing with police or uniformed service disciplinary matters. |
| Follows | Supreme Court: Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India & Ors., (2023) 9 SCC 100 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that habitual absenteeism by police personnel, especially where repeated prior punishments have failed to correct conduct, can warrant dismissal without violating Rule 16.2 or the proportionality principle.
- Appellate assessments explicitly permit taking past disciplinary history into account in “exceptional cases” involving incorrigibility.
- The decision adopts Supreme Court standards, clarifying the limited instances when proportionality can be pleaded in service dismissals from disciplined forces.
- Medical or extenuating evidence found to be unconvincing—Courts closely scrutinize such claims when absenteeism is chronic.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reviewed the appellant’s record: 42 absences spanning over 6 years in a 12-year service, four major punishments, and stoppage of 19 increments.
- Noted that the departmental inquiry followed due process and the appellant was given the opportunity to participate but declined.
- The appellate authority found the appellant’s evidence, including medical records, to be altered and inauthentic (including superstitious claims such as treatment by a Tantrik).
- Cited and applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India, emphasizing the necessity for discipline and intolerance for habitual indiscipline in uniformed services.
- Ruled that proportionality of punishment cannot be invoked by habitual offenders in disciplined forces, especially when prior corrective measures have failed.
- Affirmed that there was neither procedural irregularity nor gross disproportionality in the punishment; rather, dismissal was justified and required to uphold service discipline.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Claimed the spirit of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, was violated by the dismissal.
- Argued that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate.
- Sought application of the proportionality principle and a more liberal approach due to alleged medical unfitness.
Respondent
- Asserted repeated unauthorized absence and habitual indiscipline.
- Highlighted the appellant’s poor service record: frequent absences, multiple major and minor punishments.
- Contended that the departmental inquiry was fair and proper, and that discipline in a uniformed service is paramount.
Factual Background
The appellant, a constable in the Haryana Police, was subject to disciplinary proceedings for unauthorized absence after he failed to join duty following a sanctioned leave. Despite being placed under suspension and notified repeatedly, the appellant did not participate in the inquiry, which proceeded ex parte. The authorities found him to have been absent on 42 occasions over a 12-year period, amounting to over six years away and compounded by a record of prior punishments. His medical documents were considered unreliable. His appeals to appellate and revisional authorities, and later to the High Court’s Single Judge, were all dismissed.
Statutory Analysis
- Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, cited as the source for discipline standards and process for dismissal.
- The Court confirmed that the rule does not bar dismissal for habitual offenders and that prior conduct may be considered in exceptional circumstances.
- No broad or liberal interpretation of the rule required; strict application justified given the facts.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissent; both Justices (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. and ROHIT KAPOOR, J.) concurred in the reasoning and outcome.
Procedural Innovations
None noted in the judgment; regular disciplinary and appellate procedures adhered to.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision explicitly applies and follows existing Supreme Court authority (Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India, (2023) 9 SCC 100).