P&H Court Affirms that Prolonged Absence Without Medical Justification Constitutes Gravest Misconduct Under Police Rules

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the dismissal of a police constable, Surinder Pal, for extended unauthorized absences from duty. In a decision pronounced on May 15, 2024, Justice Namit Kumar dismissed Surinder Pal's appeal against the orders of the lower courts and departmental authorities. The court emphasized that absence without valid medical evidence, especially in a disciplined force, constitutes severe misconduct warranting dismissal under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.

Surinder Pal, who joined as a constable in the Superintendent of Police office in Hisar, was absent from duty from December 25, 1989, to December 28, 1989, and again from January 22, 1990, to March 27, 1991. Despite being dismissed from service on December 13, 1991, following a departmental inquiry, Surinder Pal's appeals and revision petitions were rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the Director General of Police, Haryana. Subsequent legal challenges in the trial and appellate courts were also dismissed, leading to the present appeal.

Credibility of Medical Evidence: The court noted that the appellant failed to provide any credible medical evidence to justify his prolonged absence. The initial defense of being ill due to supernatural influences and treatment by a Molvi was found insufficient. "The plaintiff was absent more than three days and took the defense of his illness but no medical certificate was produced," the trial court had observed, and this view was upheld by the High Court.

Assessment of Misconduct: Justice Namit Kumar emphasized that Surinder Pal's actions constituted grave misconduct. The absence of duty by a member of a disciplined force like the police is a serious offense, and prolonged unauthorized absence without valid justification disrupts discipline. "The act of absence from duty by a member of a disciplined force is nothing but the gravest act of misconduct," the court stated, aligning with previous judgments.

The court's judgment highlighted the provisions under Rule 16.2 and Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. It reaffirmed that dismissal is warranted for the gravest acts of misconduct, including prolonged unauthorized absences. The requirement of approval from the District Magistrate for departmental inquiries under Rule 16.38 was deemed inapplicable in this case, as there was no criminal offense involved in connection with official duties.

Justice Namit Kumar remarked, "In view of the above, I find that both the Courts below have rightly upheld the dismissal of the appellant/plaintiff from service as the act of absence from duty by a member of a disciplined force is nothing but the gravest act of misconduct."

The High Court's decision underscores the importance of maintaining discipline within the police force and the severe consequences of unauthorized absences. By affirming the dismissal, the court sends a clear message about the seriousness of such misconduct. This judgment is expected to reinforce the adherence to disciplinary rules within the police and other similar services.

Date of Decision: May 15, 2024