212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1489-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.09.2025 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ... APPELLANTS VS. SUKHWINDER SINGH .. RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. **** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA , J. (ORAL) CM-3286-LPA-2019 Prayer in the present application is for condonation of delay of 91 days in filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 91 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. LPA-1489-2019 1. This appeal is by the Union of India challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, whereby the punishment orders passed against the respondent-petitioner came to be quashed. 2. There were two charges levelled against the respondent- petitioner. One was for absence from duty for 11 days. The other charge was that he had committed an act of indiscipline by conniving with a lady, the daughter of a CISF Constable, to flee from Mumbai and attend her wedding SMRITI 2025.09.19 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment LPA-1489-2019 (O&M) -2- with his younger brother. The learned Single Judge noticed that the absence period of 11 days was explained as the respondent-petitioner was on sanctioned medical leave during such period. 3. With regard to the other charge of the lady running away with the brother of the respondent-petitioner, it has come on record that the lady herself appeared during the disciplinary proceedings and stated that she had no grievance against the respondent-petitioner. It is otherwise not in dispute that the brother of the respondent-petitioner had married the lady concerned. It has, therefore, been found that in-fact there was no misconduct on the part of the respondent for which he could be removed from service. 4. Having gone through the material on record, we have not been able to find any illegality or perversity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge which may require any interference by this Court. 5. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 6. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) JUDGE (ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE 17.09.2025 smriti Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SMRITI 2025.09.19 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment