LexRAJINDER KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2015) 9 S.C.R. 429 RAJINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No.8064 of 2015) SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 [T.S. THAKUR AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] A B Service law - Dismissal from service - Constable remained absent from duty - Disciplinary Authority as also C appellate authority found him unfit for service -·Penalty of dismissal from service - Writ petition by constable - The learned single Judge of the High Court set aside the punishment order and remanded back the matter to the Disciplinary Authority - Division Bench set aside the order 0 of the learned single judge - On appeal, held: Once a person is found unfit for service on account of intermittent and unauthorized absence for which the delinquent though has a reasonable explanation, no doubt, there is no point in continuing him in service either by reverting him or by E imposing punishments like stoppage of increment, etc. - Indiscipline of any sort cannot be tolerated at all in a disciplined force - However, in view of the factual background of the constable, authorities should have considered whether a punishment other than dismissal would have been . F appropriate - On facts, it is not proper to remand the matter to any of the authorities - Authorities having found the appellant to be unfit to continue in Police Service, the punishment of compulsory retirement, which is also a prescribed punishment, should have been the appropriate . G one - Thus, the order of dismissal of the constable is set aside - Constable be treated as compulsorily retired from service from the date of the original order. 429 H 430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R. A Ghanshyam Dass Re than v. State of Haryana and others B 2009 (10) SCR 603: (2009) 14 SCC 506 - referred to. Case Law Reference 2009 (10) SCR 603 referred to. Para 6 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDITION: Civil Appeal No. 8064 of2015. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2013 of the C High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 1077 of 2010 in CWP No. 19992 of 2009. D E Manjit Singh, Vivekta Singh, Satyendra Kumar for the Appellant. · Sanjay Kumar Visen, Rajesh Kumar Singh for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KURIAN, J.: 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant was appointed as a constable under the first respondent-State on 24.12.1979. On the ground that he F remained absent from duty while he was posted in police lines, · Kurkshetra, Haryana on three occasions, extending to a total period of thirty seven days, disciplinary proceedings were initiated. He was found guilty of misconduct and a major penalty of dismissal was imposed on him by order dated 22.11.1994 G of the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra, Haryana. The ·appeal before the 0.1.G. of Police, Ambala, Haryana was dismissed, and that order was challenged before the High Court in C.W.P. No. 16511of1997. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by Judgment dated 26.05.2009. The operative H portion of the judgment reads as follows: RAJINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA 431 [KURIAN, J.] "It is, thus, clear that the finding regarding the petitioner A having committed gravest misconduct cannot be faulted. However, reading the impugned order against the backdrop of the latest exposition of law (reproduced above). I find that the punishing authority has not considered the question regarding the right of the B petitioner's pension. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders of punishment (Annexure P-3 and P-8) are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority for taking a fresh decision on the above aspect and pass a fresh order of punishment C within a period of three months. However, the order of reinstatement shall remain in abeyance till such fresh consideration and will depend upon the outcome of the same." D 3. The order of the learned Single Judge was taken up in intra court appeal leading to the impugned Judgment dated 22.02.2013. The Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court. E 4. It is not in dispute that the appellant had put in around fifteen years of service prior to his termination. The chargE!! against the appellant was only of unauthorized absence of short durations. The appellant had an explanation for his absence, F that he was taking treatment in the District C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.