Punjab and Haryana High court saves widow’s pension: Why 27 years of service overruled cop’s dismissal for absence

The awarded punishment cannot be called proportionate to the alleged misconduct, Justice Jagmogan Bansal noted. (Image enhanced using AI)

The order added that there is no finding that he was incorrigible or that his conduct was the gravest misconduct, and he is not claiming back wages.

Highlighting that the awarded punishment cannot be called proportionate to the alleged misconduct, the order stated that if the punishment is disproportionate to the alleged offence, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Case of dismissal in the absence case

• The petitioner’s husband (the “employee”) joined the police force as a constable on August 31, 1992.
• In 2018, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him for remaining absent from duty for 212 days.
• Following the inquiry, the Superintendent of Police (SP), Jhajjar, awarded him the punishment of dismissal from service on December 3, 2018.
• The employee subsequently passed away while his revision petition was pending before the Director General of Police (DGP), who later dismissed the revision in October 2020.
• His widow approached the high court seeking to set aside these orders, arguing that the punishment was excessive given his 27 years of service and the fact that he was not involved in any criminal activity.

Arguments of parties

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocates Pardeep Sehrawat and Binayjeet Sheoran argued that the punishment awarded by the authorities is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
• They further submitted that the employee had 27 years’ service to his credit at the time of passing of the impugned order.
• They stated that he was dismissed on the grounds of absence from duty, and he was not involved in any criminal activity.
• His conduct by no stretch of imagination could be called the gravest misconduct.
• Representing the state, Additional Advocate General Akshit Pathania argued that an employee belongs to a disciplined force; thus, his conduct must be above board, and he is bound to maintain high standards of discipline.

‘Action was bad in eyes of law’

• A police officer would be subjected to departmental proceedings and may be subjected to the punishment of dismissal.
• Sub-rule (2) (authorised punishments) of Rule 16.2 of PPR contemplates an independent situation where a police officer may be dismissed from service.
• It provides that an enrolled police officer sentenced judicially to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month, unless the sentence is quashed on appeal or revision, shall be dismissed from service.
• If conviction is upheld by higher courts, authorities are left with no other option except to dismiss the police officer.

• He was dismissed from service for absence from duty. He was not involved in any criminal case; thus, his case ought to be examined in the light of Rule 16.2(1) (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. In making such an award regard shall be had to the
  length of service of the offender and his claim to pension).
• His case does not fall within the ambit of explanation to Rule 16.2(1).
• The authority relied upon his past service record without complying with the mandate of Rule 16.24(1)(vii) of PPR.
• The action of the respondent was bad in the eyes of the law.
• It is a settled proposition of law that punishment should be commensurate to the alleged offence.
• The principle of proportionality should be followed by all quasi- judicial and judicial authorities while awarding punishment irrespective of the nature of the offence.
• As per the principle of proportionality, even punishment prescribed by legislation must be commensurate with the alleged offence.

‘Employee has passed away’

• During the course of the hearing, the petitioner’s advocate pointed out that the employee was suffering from cancer and passed away during the pendency of the revision.
• He was less than 55 years old at the time of death. His son is also mentally challenged.
• There is no finding that he was incorrigible or that his conduct was the gravest misconduct.
• He is not claiming back wages. Thus, awarded punishment cannot be called proportionate to alleged misconduct.
• The respondent was bound to award punishment proportionate to the alleged offence.
• In the normal course matter ought to be remanded to the authorities to reconsider quantumthe of punishment.
• The employee has passed away; thus, this court does not find it appropriate to remand the matter back to departmental authorities.

• A period of more than seven years from the date of the alleged offence has already passed.
• The authorities have passed impugned orders mechanically, and there is a possibility that remand would multiply the litigation.
• To cut short the litigation and considering the alleged misconduct, this court deems it appropriate to modify the punishment of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement.