Gravest Misconduct Justifies Dismissal Without Considering Past Record: Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Police Constable for 37-Day Unauthorized Absence

“When Dismissal Is for a Grave Act of Misconduct, Reference to Past Infractions Does Not Vitiate the Order” – Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a police constable who remained willfully absent from duty for 37 days. The Court overruled the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision, restoring the orders of the disciplinary authority, appellate authority, and revisional authority, and reaffirmed that dismissal for gravest misconduct does not require prior notice about past service record if it is not the basis for punishment.

“Reference to Past Misconduct Does Not Invalidate Dismissal When the Act in Question Is Grave Enough on Its Own”

The case revolved around Satpal Singh, appointed as a constable in the Punjab Armed Forces in 1989, later transferred to the Commando Battalion. In April 1994, he overstayed his sanctioned leave by 37 days. A departmental enquiry was conducted, where Singh neither cross-examined witnesses nor offered any defence, despite full opportunity.

The disciplinary authority, after due enquiry and issuing a show-cause notice, passed an order of dismissal dated 03.05.1996, also noting his prior absenteeism and pending departmental enquiries.

The High Court, relying on State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda, held that since Satpal’s past conduct was referenced in the dismissal order without prior disclosure, it amounted to denial of natural justice and set aside the dismissal.

The Supreme Court, however, reversed this ruling, holding:

“The disciplinary authority had merely referred to the past misconduct… but the punishment was imposed for the gravest act of unauthorized absence. Hence, Manche Gowda was wrongly applied by the High Court.”

“Rule 16.2(1) Allows Dismissal for a Single Grave Act Without Considering Length of Service or Past Record”

The core legal issue revolved around Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which provides:

“Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. In making such an award regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension.”

The High Court applied the second part of Rule 16.2(1), finding that the department failed to consider Satpal’s service length or pension entitlement.

However, the Supreme Court clarified: “The present case falls under the first part of Rule 16.2(1)—dismissal for a gravest act of misconduct. It was not a dismissal for cumulative misconduct. Therefore, there was no obligation to consider past service length or pension eligibility.”

Relying on State of Punjab v. Ram Singh Ex-Constable (1992), the Court held:

“The very order of dismissal for gravest misconduct may entail forfeiture of all pensionary benefits. The word ‘or’ in Rule 16.2(1) is disjunctive, not conjunctive.”

“Past Infractions Can Be Referenced to Add Weight—Not Every Mention Invalidates the Order”

The Court distinguished between using prior misconduct as a basis for punishment, versus mentioning it illustratively. The Court ruled:

“The consideration of the past misconduct was not the effective reason for dismissing him from the service. It was referenced only for adding weight.”

This position echoes earlier rulings such as:

• India Marine Service Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1963)

• Union of India v. Bishamber Das Dogra (2009)

• Govt. of A.P. v. Mohd. Taher Ali (2007)

“There can be no hard-and-fast rule that merely because the earlier misconduct has not been mentioned in the charge-sheet it cannot be taken into consideration… it may only reinforce the decision.” — Mohd. Taher Ali

“Repeated Indiscipline Is Not Tolerable in Uniformed Forces”: Supreme Court Warns of Lax Standards

The Court noted that Satpal Singh had a history of habitual absenteeism, including previous absences of 68, 180, and 20 days respectively, and had already been penalized. Though not the primary reason for his dismissal, these facts were relevant to the Court’s appreciation of his overall conduct.

The Bench underscored: “Being a member of a disciplined force, the respondent remained absent without permission and even without informing… this repeated misconduct shows gross violation of discipline.”

High Court’s Findings on “17 Years of Service” Declared Factually Incorrect

The High Court had held that Satpal Singh’s 17 years of service was not considered, which should have warranted leniency.

But the Supreme Court clarified: “He had served for less than 7 years. The reference to ‘17 years of forfeited service’ was a theoretical calculation, indicating that due to past infractions, he would not have earned increments even if he had continued in service.”

Grave Misconduct Justifies Dismissal Without Prejudice

Summing up, the Supreme Court stated: “The order of dismissal is a consequence of proved misconduct… not based on cumulative past acts. Mere reference to past infractions does not vitiate the dismissal.”

Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the disciplinary dismissal, declaring that no illegality had occurred, and that the procedure had been followed in accordance with natural justice.

Date of Decision: August 29, 2025