HARJIT SINGH AND ANR. versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 23-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
HARJIT SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
THE ST A TE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 23, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Punjab Police Manual; Rule 16.2: 
Dismissal of police constables from service on ground of absence from 
dutylmisconduct-.Challenged by delinquents-Dismissed by trial Court-
Reversed by first appellate Court-Second appeal allowed by High Court-
On appeal, Held: All the delinquents absented from duty together-Despite 
D the fact that delinquents might have committed a grave act of misconf!uct, 
the law requires the disciplinary authority to arrive at such a finding-· 
Procedure laid down therefor embodying principles of natural justice required 
to be complied with by the authorities-Jn the facts and circumstances of the 
case, ordinarily, the disciplinary authority would have been asked to consider 
the matter afresh-However, having regard to the lapse of time since their 
E dismissal from service, punishment of compulsory retirement will meet the 
ends of justice-If otherwise eligible, delinquents would be entitled to retiral 
benefits. 
Appellants were appointed as Constables in the Police Department of 
the State of Punjab. They had been put on guard duty in a hospital to keep a 
F watch on a 'convict', an eighty years old man. He was allegedly shackled to 
the bed. At about 9 p.m. on the intervening night of 19th/20th May, 1984, the 
appellant-constables were found to be absent by the Inspector of Police. On 
enquiries, he came to know that all the three constables were absent from 
duty from 9 p.m. onwards. They were charge sheeted and a departmental 
G proceedings was initiated against them. The Enquiry Officer found them guilty. 
The enqu.iry report was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. The 
Disciplinary authority having found the cause shown by the deli.nquents to be 
unsatisfactory, passed orders of dismissal from service against them. 
Aggrieved, all the three constables filed a suit, whicb was dismissed by the 
H 
130 
HARJIT SINGH v. ST ATE OF PUNJAB 
131 
trial Court. Appeal filed against the order of trial Court was allowed by the A 
. ,-< 
first appellate Court observing that absence from duty cannot be taken to be 
serious lapse which merits dismissal of the delinquents from service. A 
second appeal preferred by the State of Punjab as also the disciplinary 
Authority was allowed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellants contended that from the impugned order passed by the B 
Disciplinary Authority, it appears that the authority had failed to consider 
the implication as also the effect and purport of the provisions under Rule 
----'-
16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules. 
Respondent submitted that it was not necessary for the disciplinary c 
authority to specifically state in the order of dismissal of services that the 
delinquents were guilty of gravest acts of misconduct. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the D 
delinquents inter-alia on the premise that they were absent from duty from 9 
p.m. till 2 a.m. on 19th/20th May, 1984. All the three constables were required 
to watch a convict It is really a matter of surprise that the patient was shackled 
-; 
although he was 80 years old and a patient of tuberculosis. Why the human 
' 
right of the prisoner was violated is not known. Absence from duty on the 
part of all the delinquent officers constitutes a grave misconduct particularly, E 
when the convict was placed on shackles as evidently they knew that he would 
not be able to move from his bed. [Paras 9[ (135-G-H] 
1.2. All the witnesses examined before the enquiry officer categorically 
stated that all the three delinquent officers had absented from duty together. 
Their cross-examination was directed only towards the nature of guard duty F 
and the facilities and infrastructure available to those who were posted 
therefor. The case of the State, however, all along been that the appellants 
had not been put on guard duty. They never said that the delinquents were not 
absent from duty. They were obligated to keep a watch over the convict, 
particularly, when he was an aged patient suffering from tuberculosis. G 
However, despite the fact that the appellants might have committed a grave 
act of misconduct, the law requires the disciplinary authority to arrive at such 
-~ 
a finding. [Para 9] [135-H; 136-A-BJ 
1.3. It is one thing to say that the disciplinary authority accepted t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.