New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal of Punjab Police Constable Satpal Singh, ruling that repeated unauthorized absence during a short tenure constitutes gross indiscipline in a disciplined force.
Bench Decision
A bench of Justices J. K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi delivered the judgment in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh. The Court held that habitual absenteeism undermines the discipline essential for police service and cannot be excused.
Case Background
Satpal Singh joined the Punjab Armed Forces in 1989 and was later posted to the Commando Force at Patiala. In April 1994, he overstayed sanctioned leave of one day by 37 days without approval. Records showed multiple earlier instances of unauthorized absence, for which he faced departmental action.
A departmental inquiry followed. Singh neither cross-examined witnesses nor produced evidence in his defense. He also failed to respond to a show-cause notice. In 1996, the disciplinary authority dismissed him, treating the period of absence as non-duty.
Chronology of Proceedings
The trial court and first appellate court upheld the dismissal. However, in 2010, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled in Singh’s favour. It relied on State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda (1964), holding that dismissal was based on past misconduct not mentioned in the show-cause notice.
Supreme Court’s Findings
The apex court clarified that under Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, dismissal may be ordered for the gravest act of misconduct or for cumulative misconduct showing incorrigibility. In Singh’s case, dismissal was based on his gravest act, 37 days of unauthorized absence not on past record.
The Court noted that the disciplinary authority referred to earlier absences only to reinforce its reasoning. It ruled that the High Court erred in relying on K. Manche Gowda.
Discipline in Police Service
The bench observed that Singh’s repeated absence during his seven-year career amounted to gross indiscipline. It stressed that police service demands the highest standard of dedication and responsibility.
Allowing the State’s appeal, the Court restored the dismissal order. The bench concluded:
“The absence of the respondent from duty on various occasions in a short tenure of service of around 7 years is gross indiscipline… the dismissal was rightly imposed as a consequence of proved misconduct.”
