-1- CWP-19872 of 2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19872 of 2001 Shinder Singh (since deceased) through his LRs ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Argued by: Ms. Manveen Kahlon, Advocate, for Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab. Sr. No. Particulars Details 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 07.07.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 17.07.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 17.07.2026 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or full judgment is pronounced Full 5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable NAMIT KUMAR, J. 1. Instant petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari thereby quashing the order dated 21.02.2000 (Annexure P-6), passed by respondent No.4 – Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran, whereby deceased petitioner-Constable Shinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’) was dismissed from service and further to quash the order dated 05.07.2001 (Annexure P-7), passed by respondent No.3 – Deputy Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar, whereby appeal RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.17 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -2- CWP-19872 of 2001 preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 21.02.2000 (Annexure P-6) has been dismissed. 2. The facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the petitioner joined the Police Department on 14.07.1978. While he was posted as Reader with Inspector Swaran Singh, absented himself on 04.03.1997 without any intimation or permission and came present after fourteen days vide rapat No.44 dated 16.03.1997. Petitioner again became absent on 07.04.1997 and absence report was marked vide rapat No.13 dated 07.04.1997 and reported back on 03.02.1998 after remaining absent for 09 months and 27 days. Thus, the petitioner remained absent for a total period of 10 months and 27 days. He was served with a charge-sheet. Thereafter, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was held guilty of the charges framed against him. Another enquiry was also conducted against him for remaining absent from duty from 27.05.1998 to 10.09.1999 (i.e. 472 days) which was held up. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner proposing to dismiss his services from the Police Department. The notice was duly received by him on 17.12.1999. He was given 10 days’ time to submit his reply or come present, however, the petitioner did not file his reply nor appeared for personal hearing. Vide order dated 21.02.2000 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran, petitioner was dismissed from service. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal, which too has been dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Border Range, RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.17 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -3- CWP-19872 of 2001 Amritsar, vide order dated 05.07.2001 (Annexure P-7). Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prolonged absence was neither deliberate nor wilful, as the petitioner was suffering from various ailments during the relevant period. It is contended that the disciplinary authority failed to appreciate the medical condition of the petitioner and that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct. It is further contended that the petitioner had already put more than ten years of service before absence, therefore, he has earned a right to pension and denial thereof is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner remained absent from duty for 10 months and 27 days without obtaining prior permission or sanctioned leave. Departmental proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and the disciplinary authority, upon considering the material on record, imposed the penalty of dismissal. The appellate authority independently examined the material and found no reason to interfere. He further submitted that petitioner was a habitual absentee having earlier suffered the punishment of permanent forfeiture of two years service in 1987 and another forfeiture of two years in 2000, on account of unauthorised absence for 05 months 20 days and 01 hour, and that a separate departmental enquiry pertaining to his unauthorised absence for 472 days was also pending. He further contended that petitioner RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.17 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -4- CWP-19872 of 2001 failed to substantiate his plea of illness before the departmental authorities as despite opportunity of hearing given to him, he chose not to appear before the authorities. Accordingly, the impugned orders are legal and justified and call for no interference by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is well-settled. This Court does not sit as an appellate authority over departmental proceedings. Interference is warranted only where the inquiry is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, procedural illegality, findings based on no evidence, or where the punishment is so grossly disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the Court. In the present case, the petitioner has not demonstrated any procedural infirmity in the conduct of the departmental inquiry. Charge-sheet was served and due opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Singh, (1996) 1 Supreme Court Cases 302 has held as under: - “8. We are clearly of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in modifying the punishment while concurring with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. The High Court failed to bear in mind that the first respondent was a police constable and was serving in a disciplined force demanding strict adherence to the rules and procedures more than any other department. Having noticed the fact that the first respondent has absented himself from duty without leave on several occasions, we RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.17 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -5- CWP-19872 of 2001 are unable to appreciate the High Court’s observation that “his absence from duty would not amount to such a grave charge”. Even otherwise on the facts of this case, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the punishment holding that “the punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of the charge” especially when the High Court concurred with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. No case for interference with the punishment is made out.” 8. In State of Punjab v. Ram Singh Ex. Constable, AIR 1992 SC 2188, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held to the following effect: “7. Rule 16.2(1) consists of two parts. The first part is referable to gravest acts of misconduct which entails awarding an order of dismissal. Undoubtedly there is distinction between gravest misconduct and grave misconduct. Before awarding an order of dismissal it shall be mandatory that dismissal order should be made only when there are gravest acts of misconduct, since it impinges upon the pensionary rights of the delinquent after putting long length of service. As stated the first part relates to gravest acts of misconduct. Under General Clauses Act singular includes plural, “act” includes acts. The contention that there must be plurality of acts of misconduct to award dismissal is fastidious. The word “acts” would include singular “act” as well. It is not the repetition of the acts complained of but its quality, insidious effect and gravity of situation that ensues from the offending ‘act’. The colour of the gravest act must be gathered from the surrounding or attending circumstances. Take for instance the delinquent who put in 29 years of continuous length of service and had unblemished record; in thirtieth year he commits RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.17 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -6- CWP-19872 of 2001 defalcation of public money or fabricates false records to conceal misappropriation. He only committed once. Does it mean that he should not be inflicted with the punishment of dismissal but be allowed to continue in service for that year to enable him to get his full pension. The answer is obviously no. Therefore, a single act of corruption is sufficient to award an order of dismissal under the rule as gravest act of misconduct. 8. The second part of the rule connotes the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service and that the length of service of the offender and his claim for pension should be taken into account in an appropriate case. The contention that both parts must be read together appears to us to be illogical. Second part is referable to a misconduct minor in character which does not by itself warrant an order of dismissal but due to continued acts of misconduct would have insidious cumulative effect on service morale and may be a ground to take lenient view of giving an opportunity to reform. Despite giving such opportunities if the delinquent officer proved to be incorrigible and found completely unfit to remain in service then to maintain discipline in the service, instead of dismissing the delinquent officer, a lesser punishment of compulsory retirement or demotion to a lower grade or rank or removal from service without affecting his future chances of re-employment, if any, may meet the ends of justice. Take for instance the delinquent officer who is habitually absent from duty when required. Despite giving an opportunity to reform himself he continues to remain absent from duty off and on. He proved himself to be incorrigible and thereby unfit to continue in service. Therefore, taking into account his long length of service RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.17 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -7- CWP-19872 of 2001 and his claim for pension he may be compulsorily retired from service so as to enable him to earn proportionate pension. The second part of the rule operates in that area. It may also be made clear that the very order of dismissal from service for gravest misconduct may entail forfeiture of all pensionary benefits. Therefore, the word ‘or’ cannot be read as “and”. It must be disjunctive and independent. The common link that connects both clauses is “the gravest act/acts of misconduct”. 9. The next question is whether the single act of heavy drinking of alcohol by the respondent while on duty is a gravest misconduct. We have absolutely no doubt that the respondent, being a gunman having service revolver in his possession, it is obvious that he was on duty; while on duty he drunk alcohol heavily and became uncontrollable. Taking to drink by itself may not be a misconduct. Out of office hours one may take to drink and remain in the house. But being on duty in a disciplined service like police service, the personnel shall maintain discipline and shall not resort to drink or be in a drunken state while on duty…….” 9. A Division Bench of this Court in The State of Haryana and others v. Gurdev Singh, 1981(3) SLR 130 observed as under: “5. ……To our mind, the cases with regard to misconduct on the part of the police officers while on duty have not to be interfered with by the Courts lightly unless it is found that the action has been taken wantonly or arbitrarily.” 10. This Court in RSA-2732 of 1997 – State of Punjab and others v. Chamkaur Singh – decided on 11.02.2015 has held that act of absence from duty by a member of disciplined force without information shows the lack of discipline. RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.17 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -8- CWP-19872 of 2001 11. Unauthorized absence for such a prolonged period cannot be treated as a trivial lapse. The petitioner was serving in the Punjab Police, which is a disciplined force entrusted with the maintenance of law and order and protection of life and property. Discipline, punctuality, and uninterrupted availability for duty constitute the very foundation of such service. Long unauthorized absence not only reflects indiscipline but also adversely affects the functioning of the police establishment and imposes additional burden upon other members of the force. 12. It is settled that members of disciplined forces stand on a different footing from employees in ordinary civil employment. Standards of discipline required from police personnel are necessarily higher. Where an employee abandons his duties for an extended period without lawful sanction, the disciplinary authority is justified in viewing such conduct seriously. 13. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner remained absent continuously for 10 months and 27 days. No satisfactory or legally acceptable justification has been shown for such prolonged absence. The disciplinary authority, after considering all relevant material, formed the opinion that the petitioner was unfit to be retained in a disciplined force. The appellate authority independently examined the matter and concurred with the said view. This Court finds no perversity, arbitrariness, or irrationality in the decision-making process. Petitioner is a habitual absentee inasmuch as per order of the punishing authority, in the year 1987 his services of two years have been deducted RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.17 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -9- CWP-19872 of 2001 permanently and in the year 2000 also, he remained absent for 05 months 20 days and 01 hour and two years service was deducted. Therefore, this Court is unable to hold that the punishment of dismissal, imposed for prolonged unauthorized absence extending to nearly eleven months by a member of the police force, is so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the Court. 14. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that keeping in view the period of service of the petitioner, he is entitled to pension, is totally misconceived as dismissal from service results in forfeiture of past service and consequently the petitioner ceases to have any qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Pension is paybale only in accordance with the statutory rules governing the service and no employee dismissed from service acquires a vested right to pension merely because he has completed the minimum period of qualifying service. As soon as a police official is dismissed from service, he is deprived from benefit of pension. 15. Pension is governed by The Punjab Civil Services Rules and Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (in short “PPR”). Chapter II Volume-II of said Rules provides for General Provisions relating to grant of pensions. Rule 2.5 provides that pension may not be granted to a government employee who is dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency, however, he may be granted compassionate allowance. Rule 2.5 of Chapter II Volume-II of The Punjab Civil Services Rules reads as:- RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.17 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -10- CWP-19872 of 2001 “No pension may be granted to a Government employee dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency; but to Government employee so dismissed or removed, compassionate allowances may be granted when they are deserving of special consideration: Provided that the allowance granted to any Government employee shall not exceed two-thirds of the pension which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on medical certificate. Note 1.–This rule vests Government with an absolute discretion to grant or not to grant any compassionate allowance, the only restriction being that if granted, it shall not exceed the maximum of two-thirds of the pension that would be admissible to the officer concerned on retirement on medical certificate. It is practically impossible in view of the wide variations that naturally exist in the circumstances attending each case, to lay down categorically, precise principles that can uniformly be applied to individual cases. Each case has, therefore, to be considered on its merits and a conclusion has to be reached on the question whether there were any such extenuating features in the case as would make the punishment awarded, though it may have been necessary in the interest of Government, unduly hard on the individual. In considering this question it has been the practice to take into account not only the actual misconduct or course of misconduct which occasioned the dismissal or removal of the officer, but also the kind of service he has rendered. Where the course of misconduct carries with it the legitimate inference that the officer‟s service has been dishonest there can seldom be any good case for a compassionate allowance. Poverty is not an essential condition precedent to the grant of a RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.17 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -11- CWP-19872 of 2001 compassionate allowance, but special regard is also occasionally paid to the fact that the officer has a wife and children dependent upon him, though this factor by itself, is not, except perhaps in the most exceptional circumstances, sufficient for the grant of a compassionate allowance. Note 2.–The report of the Accountant-General is required in all cases of grant of compassionate allowances. Note 3.–No Government employee even if belonging to a class entitled to commute ordinary pension, is entitled to commute a compassionate allowance; a commutation to such an allowance may be sanctioned by a competent authority only on proof that the proceeds of the commutation will be invested for the permanent benefit of the commutor’s family. Note 4.–In cases, where it is proposed to grant to a Government employee dismissed or removed form service, a compassionate allowance, the sanctioning authority should not condone deficiencies in service, for the purpose of determining the amount of pension that would have been admissible to him if he had retired on medical certificate on the basis of which the compassionate allowance is calculated.” 16. From the perusal of aforesaid Rule, it is evident that a dismissed employee is not entitled to pension, however, he may be paid compassionate allowance in special circumstances. The petitioner was dismissed from service and his dismissal, thus, his qualifying service lost significance. If pension is extended on the basis of length of service, the order of dismissal or removal from service would become meaningless. RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.17 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -12- CWP-19872 of 2001 17. In the wake of above discussion and findings, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. 18. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. (NAMIT KUMAR) 17.07.2026 JUDGE R.S. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2026.07.17 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment