STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus CHARANJIT SINGH

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 894 · Decided: 17-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST ATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
v. 
CHARANJIT SINGH 
SEPTEMBER 17, 2003 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.B. SINHA, J.) 
Service Law: 
Dismissal from service-unauthorized absence-Punishment 
C awarded-Absence treated as leave without pay-Effect of-Police 
Constable-Place under suspension for misconduct-During suspension 
he absented himself unauthorisedly-Departmental Inquiry-Dismissal 
from service on proved charge of unauthorized absence-Period of 
absence treated as leave without pay-Delinquent filing suit for declaration 
D contending that once the period of absence from duty was treated as leave 
without pay, the misconduct stood condoned-Suit decreed-Department's 
appeal and second appeal dismissed-Held, the courts below relying upon 
Bakshish Singh* erred in holding that the misconduct stood condoned-
No law has been laid down in Bakshish Singh to the effect that only in the 
E event leave without pay is directed to be granted while passing an order 
of punishment, the leave having been regularised the order of punishment 
also becomes bad in law and void ab initio. 
*The State of Punjab & Ors. v. Bakshish Singh, JT (1998) 7 SC 142, 
F explained and distinguished. 
Maan Singh v. Union of India and Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 464 and State 
of Madhya Pradesh v. Harihar Gopal, 1969 SLR 274(SC), relied on. 
Suspension-Police Constable under suspension-Absented himself 
G without permission-Disciplinary proceedings-Dismissal from service-
Held, courts below erred in holding that since the delinquent was under 
suspension he was not required to take leave-The order of suspension 
stipulated that the delinquent shall remain present in the Police lines and 
will attend all the roll calls and parades and he was further ordered not 
H to leave station without prior permission. 
894 
_, .. 
STATE v. CHARANJIT SINGH 
895 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1768 of A 
2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.11.2000 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 980 of 1994. 
Harinder Mohan Singh, Kaushal Yadav, Anil Hooda and R.S. Suri B 
for the Appellants. 
Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Pramod Kumar Y adav and Ms. Shalu Sharma 
for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
c 
The respondent herein was recruited as a Constable on the rolls of 
Patiala Police, Punjab. His appointing authority was superintendent of 
Police, Patiala. Subsequently, the respondent was promoted to the post of 
Head Constable. Certain Misconduct committed by the respondent in the D 
year 1984 came to the notice of the appellants and as a result of which 
the respondent was placed under suspension in view of contemplated 
inquiry. While the respondent was under suspension, he absented himself 
atleast on three occasions without any kind ofleave from the Superintendent 
of Police. In view of unauthorised absence, the appellants herein initiated E 
a departmental inquiry against the respondent. The respondent was served 
with a charge-sheet to which he filed a reply. In his explanation, it was 
stated that he had gone to attend a court case at Patiala where he had learnt 
that his wife was ill and, therefore, he went to his home town and in such 
circumstances he could not take any permission. The Inquirying Officer F 
after making inquiry found the charges to have been proved and he sent 
his report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority having 
agreed with the finding of the Inquirying Officer issued a show cause notice 
to the respondent. After considering the explanation of the respondent, the 
disciplinary authority by an order dated 15.4.1985 dismissed him from G 
service. 
The disciplinary authority, however, while dismissing the respondent 
from service held that the period of absence of respondent from duty shall 
be treated as leave without any pay. The respondent thereafter filed an 
appeal before the appellate authority which was rejected and a revision H 
896 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A filed before the Inspector General of Police was also met with the same 
fate. 
It is under such circumstances, the respondent filed a suit for 
declaration that his dismissal from service is null and void. The trial court 
framed a large number of issues. It had decreed the suit, inter a/ia, on the 
B ground that the authority could have refused to grant leave of any kind to 
the respondent and then proceeded to punish him. It held that "Once the 
leave has been granted, it cannot be said that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.