STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERSversusEX. C. SATPAL SINGH

                [2025] 8 S.C.R. 2326 : 2025 INSC 1056

                       State of Punjab and Others
                                    v.
                           Ex. C. Satpal Singh
                        (Civil Appeal No. 312 of 2012)
                                29 August 2025
             [J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose for consideration whether the disciplinary authority
       took into consideration the past conduct of the respondent while
       passing the dismissal order.

                                   Headnotes†
       Service law – Dismissal from service – Unauthorized
       absence – Respondent appointed as constable in the Punjab
       Armed Forces and then transferred to the Commando
       Force – Respondent dismissed from the service on account
       of unauthorized absence – Respondent remained absent
       from duty for 68 days, 180 days, 20 days, and lastly for 37
       days, for which the departmental enquiry was initiated, and
       was dismissed from the service – Suit by the respondent for
       declaration that the said order be declared as null and void
       and illegal, and mandatory injunction for reinstatement with
       continuity of service along with back wages – Suit as also first
       appeal dismissed – In second appeal, the High Court set aside
       termination order holding that while passing the termination
       order, the disciplinary authority took into consideration the
       previous misconduct of the respondent which was not put
       to him in the show cause notice, however the relief of back
       wages denied – Correctness:
       Held: Dismissal of the respondent was based on gravest act of
       misconduct, for which he was dealt with by the disciplinary authority
       following the procedure as prescribed and in due observance of
       principles of natural justice, hence, no fault in the same – Absence
       of the respondent from the duty on various occasions in a short
       tenure of service of around 7 years, is a gross indiscipline on the
       part of the respondent and thus, no illegality in the order passed


* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                            2327

            State of Punjab and Others v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh


     by the disciplinary authority – Reliance on r.16.2(1) of the 1934
     Rules by the High Court also misplaced – Respondent was dealt by
     the department earlier on three occasions having remained absent
     from duty and the penalties were inflicted for the same – It is the
     fourth time when he remained absent to which, a chargesheet was
     issued and his guilt was found proved – He himself had not cross-
     examined the departmental witnesses and also had not produced
     any witness in his defense – Considering all these aspects and
     having found proved his misconduct, notice to show cause from
     dismissal was issued to the respondent – Disciplinary authority,
     while imposing the penalty, had merely referred the past conduct
     and also given weight to the gravest act of misconduct – Order of
     dismissal not based on the charge of “cumulative effect of continued
     misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police
     service” – Thus, mere reference of the past conduct would not
     amount to constitute dismissal of the respondent based on the
     second limb of r.16.2(1) – Impugned judgment of the High Court
     set aside – Punjab Police Rules, 1934. [Paras 25, 27, 29, 33]

                              Case Law Cited
     Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [2010] 12
     SCR 448 : [2010] 10 SCC 539 – distinguished.
     State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda [1964] 4 SCR 540 : AIR
     1964 SC 506; India Marine Service Private Ltd. v. Their Workmen
     [1963] 3 SCR 575 : AIR 1963 SC 102; Union of India & Ors. v.
     Bishamber Das Dogra [2009] 9 SCR 828 : [2009] 13 SCC 102;
     Director General, RPF & Ors. v. Ch. Sai Babu [2003] 1 SCR 729 :
     [2003] 4 SCC 331; Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate
     [2005] 1 SCR 545 : [2005] 2 SCC 489; Govt. of A.P. and Ors. v.
     Mohd. Taher Ali [2007] 10 SCR 929: [2007] 8 SCC 656; State of
     Punjab & Ors. v. Ram Singh Ex- Constable [1992] 3 SCR 634 :
     [1992] 4 SCC 54 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Punjab Police Rules, 1934.

                             List of Keywords
     Disciplinary authority; Past conduct; Dismissal order; Unauthorized
     absence; Constable; Punjab Armed Forces; Commando Force;
     Dismissed from service; Absent from duty; Departmental enquiry;
2328                                                           [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


     Suit for declaration and mandatory injunction; Reinstatement;
     Continuity of service; Back wages; Termination order; Show cause
     notice; Misconduct; Principles of natural justice; Gross indiscipline;
     Forfeiture; Incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service;
     Punishment.

                             Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 312 of 2012
     From the Judgment and Order dated 04.08.2010 of the High Court
     of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 3802 of 2024

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     Talha Abdul Rehman, D.A.G., Ms. Nupur Kumar, Sudhanshu Tewar,
     Faizan Ahmed.
     Advs. for the Respondent:
     Varun Punia, Jetendra Singh, Vijendra Kumar Kaushik, Ms. Deepti
     Singh, Ashutosh, Ms. Manju Jetley.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

     Vijay Bishnoi, J.

1.   This appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the
     Judgment dated 04.08.2010 passed in R.S.A No. 3802 of 2004
     passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
2.   The facts, in brief, are that the respondent was appointed as a
     Constable in the Punjab Armed Forces on 04.08.1989. In the year
     1992, the respondent was transferred to the Commando Force and
     was posted at Bahadurgarh, Patiala Headquarter of the 2nd Commando
     Battalion. The respondent applied for five days leave, however, was
     granted leave only for one day. He proceeded to leave on 02.04.1994
     but did not join his duties on 04.04.1994, and instead resumed his
     duties only on 12.05.1994. The allegation against the respondent
     was that he remained absent from 04.04.1994 to 12.05.1994, i.e.,
     for around 37 days.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                       2329

            State of Punjab and Others v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh


3.   For the said unauthorized absence, the departmental enquiry
     was initiated and a chargesheet containing allegations along with
     a list of prosecution witnesses was served upon the respondent
     on 07.08.1994. During the enquiry, statements of the prosecution
     witnesses were recorded, and an opportunity was granted to the
     respondent to cross-examine those witnesses. The respondent was
     also granted an opportunity to produce witnesses in defence, but he
     refused to avail the said opportunity. The enquiry officer concluded
     the enquiry and submitted his report. Pursuant to the same, a show
     cause notice dated 25.05.1995 was issued to the respondent by
     the Commandant, 2nd Commando Battalion, Bahadurgarh, Patiala.
     However, the respondent did not file any response to the show cause
     notice within the period as prescribed and the disciplinary authority
     vide order dated 03.05.1996 dismissed the respondent from the
     service and ordered for treating the period of absence, i.e., from
     04.04.1994 to 12.05.1994 as non-duty period.
4.   The order passed by the disciplinary authority was challenged by
     the respondent by way of an appeal before the appellate authority,
     though the said appeal came to be dismissed. The respondent
     further filed a revision petition before the revisional authority, which
     was also rejected.
5.   Being aggrieved, the respondent instituted a suit for declaration and
     mandatory injunction praying that the order passed by the disciplinary
     authority, appellate authority and revisional authority be declared as
     null & void and illegal; and mandatory injunction be issued for his
     reinstatement with continuity of service along with back wages with
     interest @ 12% per annum.
6.   The said suit was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior
     Division), Sultanpur Lodhi vide judgment dated 18.07.2003. The
     first appeal, that was preferred by the respondent before the District
     Judge, Kapurthala, also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated
     01.06.2004. Thereafter, the respondent preferred second appeal
     before the High Court, wherein following substantial questions of
     law were framed: -
     1.    Whether the action of the defendants-respondents in dismissing
           the appellant from service by taking into consideration the
           previous conduct of the plaintiff which was not a part of the
           charge-sheet can be said to be just and fair?
2330                                                           [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


      2.     Whether the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant in
             violation of the provisions of Rule 16.2 of Punjab Rules, 1934
             are liable to be vitiated?
7.    Learned Single Judge of the High Court by judgment dated 04.08.2010
      answered the above referred substantial questions of law against
      the appellants and in favour of the respondent, solely relying on the
      decision of this Court rendered in the case of State of Mysore vs.
      K. Manche Gowda1. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment
      is reproduced hereunder: -
             “…Adverting to the instant case one, in the impugned
             order Ex.P-1 dated 03.05.1996, it has been observed
             that 17 years approved service of Constable Satpal Singh
             (referring to the plaintiff) has already been forfeited and
             that the absence period of 224 days has already been
             considered as non-duty period and four punishments
             have already been inflicted and he has remained under
             suspension from 23.01.1993 to 13.09.1993 and two more
             departmental enquiries are pending against him. It clearly
             indicates that the past record of the plaintiff-appellant was
             actively taken into consideration by the punishing authority
             while passing the impugned order, though in the show
             cause notice Ex.D-2/A the above referred record has not
             been disclosed at all. In such circumstances, the question
             arises as to from where the plaintiff would have presumed
             that his bad record would be taken into account by the
             punishing authority. It appears that the punishment inflicted
             vide Ex.P-1 was mainly based upon the previous record,
             which was withheld from the knowledge of the plaintiff. If
             the record pointed out above had been brought to the notice
             of the plaintiff, he in all probabilities would have taken the
             pains to explain it. In this explanation, he would have given
             certain mitigating circumstances or some other explanation
             as to why the earlier punishments were inflicted upon him
             or that subsequent to these punishments, he had served
             to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned till the time
             of the present enquiry. Besides this, he may have come


1    AIR 1964 SC 506
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                            2331

            State of Punjab and Others v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh


           forward with many other explanations. The thing is that it
           is to be seen whether he has been given an opportunity to
           explain the past record being taken into consideration while
           passing the impugned order. The plaintiff having not been
           afforded the stated opportunity, he has been condemned
           unheard with respect to his past record, which seems to
           have sufficiently weighed with the mind of the punishing
           authority, while passing the impugned order. Rule 16.2 of
           the Punjab Police Rules reads as under:-
           “16.2 Dismissal. (1) 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.
           (2) If the conduct of an enrolled police officer leads to his
           conviction on a criminal charge and he is sentenced to
           imprisonment, he shall be dismissed.
           Provided that a punishing authority may, in an exceptional
           case involving manifestly extenuating circumstances for
           reasons to be recorded and with the prior approval of the
           next higher authority impose any punishment other than
           that of dismissal.
           Provided further that in case the conviction of an enrolled
           police officer is set aside in appeal or revision, the officer
           empowered to appoint him shall review his case keeping
           in view the instructions issued by the Government from
           time to time in this behalf.
           (3) When a police officer is convicted judicially and
           dismissed, or dismissed as a result of a departmental
           enquiry, in consequence of corrupt practices, the conviction
           and dismissal and its cause shall be published in the Police
           Gazette. In other cases of dismissal when it is desired to
           ensure that the officer dismissed shall not be re-employed
           elsewhere a full descriptive roll, with particulars of the
           punishments, shall be sent for publication in the Police
           Gazette.”
2332                                                       [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


        It has been manifested in the language of this rule that
        while passing the dismissal order under this rule, regard
        shall be had to the length of service of the delinquent
        employee as also his claim to pension. As noted before,
        in the impugned order Ex.P-1 itself, it has been mentioned
        that 17 years approved service of the plaintiff has already
        been forfeited. It is thus, inferable that he has put in a long
        service, which fact has not been taken into consideration,
        while passing the impugned order. Thus, the punishing
        authority has acted in utter violation or derogation of the
        mandatory provisions of Rule 16.2 ibid.
        In Mohinder Paul Ex Constable’s case (supra) as
        mentioned in paragraph 20 of the judgment, the petitioner
        had never appeared before the disciplinary authority, nor
        he had filed reply challenging the findings recorded in
        the enquiry report. It was held that the appellate authority
        has also noticed that the petitioner had been absent from
        duty wilfully for a total period of 4 months 14 days and 11
        hours and 15 minutes. This point was not argued before
        the Appellate or the Revisional Authority, whereas in the
        case at hand, the plaintiff had approached the Deputy
        Inspector General of Police, Commando (Admn.&Ops.)
        BHG, Patiala who had dismissed his appeal vide order
        Ex.P-2. Thereafter, he filed the revision, which also met
        the same fate vide order Ex.P-3. Furthermore K. Manche
        Gowda’s case does not say that it is obligatory upon the
        constable to raise a contention before the Appellate or
        Revisional Authority that his past record without disclosing
        it in the show cause notice served upon his has been
        taken into consideration by the punishing authority. As
        Article 141 of the Constitution of India postulates, the rule
        laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Manche
        Gowda’s case is binding on this Court. Thus to my mind,
        the defendant-appellant cannot derive any mileage from
        the case of Mohinder Paul Ex Constable case (supra).
        In view of the above discussion, both the substantial questions
        of law are decided against the defendants-respondents
        and in favour of the plaintiff-appellant……………………..
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                           2333

            State of Punjab and Others v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh


           In view of the preceding discussion, the impugned
           judgments/decrees recorded by both the courts below are
           hereby set aside and suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed
           for declaration to the effect that the orders impugned are
           illegal, null and void and ineffective upon the rights of the
           plaintiff, who shall be entitled to all consequential service
           benefits including seniority but not the back wages. In the
           peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are directed
           to bear their own costs...”
8.   The relief of back wages was denied to the respondent by the High
     Court since the respondent had filed an affidavit in the department
     whereby, he had forgone the relief of back wages.
9.   Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the appellants
     has vehemently argued that the High Court has grossly erred in setting
     aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court as well
     as the Appellate Court, whereby the suit filed by the respondent for
     declaration and mandatory injunction was dismissed. It is contended
     that the High Court has come to an erroneous conclusion that while
     passing the termination order, the disciplinary authority had taken
     into consideration the previous misconduct of the respondent which
     was not put to him in the show cause notice.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that as a matter
    of fact, the dismissal order of the respondent was not based on the
    previous misconduct but was solely based on the misconduct for
    which the disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him, which was
    for unauthorised absence of around 37 days from 04.04.1994 to
    12.05.1994. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted
    that the reference of the previous conduct of the respondent in the
    dismissal order was only for adding the weight to the decision of
    imposing the punishment of dismissal.
11. It is contended that this Court in K. Manche Gowda’s case (supra)
    had ruled that a dismissal order based on the past conduct must
    precede a show cause notice detailing out the previous misconduct
    which is to be considered by the disciplinary authority while imposing
    the punishment. However, in the present case, the previous
    misconduct of the respondent was not the basis for imposing the
    punishment of dismissal and reference of the previous misconduct
    was only mentioned, apart from the indiscipline for which punishment
    was imposed. In support of the above argument, learned counsel for
2334                                                       [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     appellants has placed reliance on the decision of this Court rendered
     in India Marine Service Private Ltd. vs. Their Workmen2 and
     Union of India & Ors. vs. Bishamber Das Dogra3.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that the
    High Court had also erred in observing that the respondent had put
    in a long period of service and therefore as per Rule 16.2 (1) of the
    Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter, referred to as “the Rules
    of 1934”), the duration of service has to be taken into consideration
    while passing the impugned order.
     12.1 It is contented that as a matter of fact, the respondent has
          served only for a brief period from 04.08.1989 to 03.05.1996,
          i.e., less than 07 years. The High Court had misconstrued
          the mentioning of the forfeiture of 17 years of the service of
          the respondent in the dismissal order dated 03.05.1996. It is
          contended that the said mentioning of 17 years was only in
          respect of forfeited service of the respondent based on the
          orders passed by the departmental authority for unauthorised
          absence of the respondent for the afore-stated period. The
          mentioning of 17 years of service was only to indicate that his
          service period of 17 years was already ordered to be forfeited
          and pursuant to that, the respondent was not entitled to any
          increment during his service tenure up to 17 years if he would
          have remained in the service.
13. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that
    Rule 16.2 (1) of the Rules of 1934 consists of two parts. The first
    part is in relation to the gravest acts of misconduct, which result in
    awarding punishment of dismissal and the second part speaks about
    the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility
    and complete unfitness for police service and that the length of
    service of the offender and his claim to pension should be taken
    into account in an appropriate case. The learned counsel for the
    appellants has contended that the disciplinary authority had exercised
    its power under the first part of Rule 16.2 (1), which is in relation to
    the gravest acts of misconduct, and therefore there is no question
    of taking into consideration the length of service of the delinquent
    for his claim for pension. The learned counsel for the appellants


2   AIR 1963 SC 528
3   (2009) 13 SCC 102
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                      2335

             State of Punjab and Others v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh


     has also submitted that being a member of the disciplined force, the
     respondent remained absent for a considerably long period without
     seeking permission and even without informing, and therefore, in the
     facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment of dismissal from
     service cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. The appellants,
     therefore, prayed for the impugned order passed by the High Court
     to be set aside.
14. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has
    opposed the civil appeal and has argued that the High Court had not
    committed any illegality in passing the impugned order because the
    disciplinary authority while inflicting the punishment of dismissal had
    relied upon the past misconduct of the respondent without disclosing
    the same in the show cause notice and the same is not permissible
    as per the law laid down by this Court in K. Manche Gowda’s case
    (supra). The learned counsel for the respondent has also argued
    that as per the mandate of Rule16.2(1) of the Rule of 1934, the
    disciplinary authority ought to have taken into consideration the length
    of service of the respondent and his claim of pension.
15. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the
    decision of this Court rendered in Mohd. Yunus Khan vs. State
    of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.4 Consequently, he has prayed that there
    is no force in this appeal and the same may kindly be dismissed.
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is to be noted
    that the respondent was appointed as a Constable on 04.08.1989
    in the Punjab Armed Forces. In the year 1992, the respondent was
    transferred to the Commando Force and was posted at Bahadurgarh,
    Patiala Headquarter of the 2nd Commando Battalion. The respondent
    remained absent from duties for the following periods: -
            1.     From 04.06.1993 to 11.08.1993 (for 68 days)
            2.     From 06.09.1993 to 04.03.1994 (for 180 days)
            3.     From 12.12.1993 to 04.01.1994 (for 20 days)
     And lastly, he remained absent from 04.04.1994 to 12.05.1994 (37
     days), for which the departmental enquiry was initiated, and he was
     dismissed from the service. The chargesheet dated 27.07.1994 served
     upon the respondent on 07.08.1994 is reproduced hereunder: -


4   (2010) 10 SCC 539
2336                                                        [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


                   CHARGE SHEET/ANNEXURE P-12
        I, Inspector Darshan Singh, 2 nd Commando Bn.
        Bahadurgarh, (Patiala) after recording the statements
        of prosecution witnesses and after examination, hereby
        charge you that you Constable Satpal Singh 2/280,
        when you were posted at Battalion Headquarters, then
        you were departed on one day sanctioned casual leave.
        Your departure was recorded vide Rapat No. 19 dated
        2-4-94 in the Roznamcha, 2nd Commando Bn. You were
        to return before noon on 4.4.94. After availing the leave,
        instead of coming present in time, became absent. Your
        absence was recorded vide Rapat No. 12 dated 4.4.94
        in the Roznamcha of Battalion Headquarters. Then TPM
        No. 4846-47/O.H.C. dated 7.4.94, Attendance Notice No:
        5158/OHC dated 12.4.94, and TPM No. 5831-32/OHC,
        dated 27.4.94 were sent at your home address. Then
        on 12-5-94 after remaining absent for 37 days 23 hours
        10 minutes came present at Battalion Headquarters vide
        Rapat No.10.
        You being a member of discipline force, and well aware
        about discipline, remaining willful absent from 4.4.94 to
        12-5-94 for 37 days 23 hours 10 minutes, which is great
        indiscipline of police discipline. Which has also been proved
        clearly and correctly by prosecution witnesses. Your such
        absence, is great violation of police discipline, irresponsible,
        negligence has been proved, which is condemnable and
        punishable.
        Put up for approval please.

        Sd/- Commandant               Sd/- Inspector Darshan Singh,
        Approved.                             Inquiry Officer,
        Copy of charge sheet               2nd Commando Bn.
        has been received free            Bahadurgarh, (Patiala)
        of costs.
        Sd/- Ct. Satpal Singh                 Dated : 27.7.94
        2/280
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                        2337

            State of Punjab and Others v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh


17. During the course of the enquiry, as many as four prosecution
    witnesses were examined on behalf of the department and the
    respondent was granted an opportunity to cross-examine them,
    but it appears that he had not cross-examined the said witnesses.
    The respondent was also granted opportunity by the enquiry officer
    to produce evidence in defence but the respondent refused in
    writing to produce any evidence in defence. The enquiry officer
    submitted his report and found the respondent guilty. The disciplinary
    authority, thereafter, issued a show cause notice to the respondent
    on 25.05.1995. The said show cause notice dated 25.05.1995, is
    reproduced hereunder: -

                    SHOW CAUSE NOTICE/ANNEXURE P-16
                                                    No. 6191/Steno
                                                  Dated 25.05.1995
           You, Constable Satpal Singh, No. 2-C/280, were posted
           at Battalion Headquarters. You were preceded on one
           day casual leave on 02.04.1994 as per DDR No. 19. You
           had to resume your duty on 04.04.1994 before noon.
           But you did not resume your duty and you were marked
           absent on 04.04.1994 as per DDR No. 12. A number of
           notices/TPMs were served on your home address vide
           nos. 4846-47/OHC, Dated 07.04.1994, 5158/OHC, dated
           12.04.1994 and 5831-32/OHC, dated 27.04.1994. But
           you resumed duty on 12.05.1994 vide DDR No. 10 after
           remaining absent for 37 days 23 Hours and 10 Minute.
           Being a member of discipline force, remaining willful
           absent for such a long period from casual leave without
           informing any reason to department or without getting
           permission from department is a grave indiscipline, which
           is a condemnable and punishable.
           Due to remaining absent for 37 days 23 hours and 10
           minute Departmental Enquiry was initiated against you
           vide this office Order No. 726874/Steno Dated 25.05.1994
           which was further handed over to Inspector Darshan Singh
           of 2nd Commando Battalion. List of allegation along with
           list of prosecution witnesses was served upon you without
           free of cost by the Inquiry Officer on 22.07.1994. Inquiry
2338                                                     [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


        officer gave you full opportunity to defend yourself. Inquiry
        Officer recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses
        on different-2 dates. Inquiry Officers also gave you full
        opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses.
        Then, Inquiry Officer prepared the charge-sheet, got it
        approved and served to you free of cost on 07.08.1994.
        Inquiry Officer given 48 hours time to you to produce list
        of defence witnesses. But you denied in written application
        to produce list of defence witnesses. Inquiry Officer given
        you 7 days more time to produce your defence, but you
        did not submit your written defence. Inquiry officer then
        prepared the conclusion report as per rules. Inquiry Officer
        then put the conclusion report and Departmental Inquiry
        before me. I examined the Departmental Inquiry and
        conclusion report thoroughly.
        Inquiry Officers held you guilty. I am agrees with the
        conclusion report of the Inquiry Officer.
        Due to above allegation, I propose, why you should not be
        dismissed from service and absent period from 04.04.94
        to 12.05.94 (37 days 23 hours and 10 minutes i.e. 38
        days) be treated as Non-duty period. But before passing
        such order, I want to give you one more chance to defend
        your case. After receiving this notice, within 10 days, you
        can produce your defence before me either in writing or
        orally after appearing before me. Your oral defence will
        be considered accordingly. If you do not submit your
        reply within the stipulated period, it will be presumed that
        you don’t want to say anything in your defence and you
        are also accepting the allegation against you and orders
        regarding punishment referred in show cause notice will
        be passed.
        One copy of show cause notice be served to Constable
        Satpal Singh, No. 2/280, free of cost.
                                                            Sd/-
                                                   Commandant,
                                         2nd Commando Battalion,
                                             Bahadurgarh Patiala.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                          2339

            State of Punjab and Others v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh


18. The show cause notice was duly served upon the respondent.
    However, the respondent did not file any response. Ultimately, the
    disciplinary authority passed the dismissal order dated 03.05.1996,
    which is reproduced hereunder:

                          ORDER/ANNEXURE P-17
           “Constable Satpal Singh, No. 2-C/280, was posted at
           Battalion Headquarters, Bahadurgarh Patiala. He was
           preceded on one day casual leave on 02.04.1994. He
           had to resume his duty on 04.04.1994 before noon.
           But he did not resume his duty in time and was marked
           absent on 04.04.1994 as per DDR No. 12. A number of
           notices/TPMs were served on his home address vide
           nos. 484647/OHC, dated 07.04.1994, 5158/OHC, dated
           12.04.1994 and 5831-32/OHC dated 27.04.1994. But
           he resumed duty on 12.05.1994 vide DDR No. 10 after
           remaining absent for 37 days 23 Hours and 10 Minute.
           His being a member of discipline force, remaining willful
           absent for such a long period from casual leave without
           informing any reason to department or without getting
           permission from department is a grave indiscipline, which
           is a censurable and punishable. Due to above allegation
           Department Enquiry was initiated against Constable Satpal
           Singh, No. 2-C/280 vide this office Order No. 7268-74/
           Steno, dated 25.05.1994 and was further handed over
           to Inspector Darshan Singh of 2nd Commando Battalion.
           Gist of allegation alongwith list of prosecution witnesses
           was served to him without cost by the Inquiry Officer on
           22.07.1994. Inquiry had given him full chances to defend
           himself. Inquiry Officer after recording statements of
           prosecution witnesses on different-2 dates, given these
           to him and given him a full chance to cross examined the
           prosecution witnesses. Then, Inquiry Officer prepared the
           charge-sheet, got it approved and served to him without
           cost on 07.08.1994. Inquiry Officer also given him 48 hours
           time to produce defence witnesses, but he denied in writing,
           to produce defence witnesses. Inquiry Officer given him 7
           days time to produce his defence, but he did not submit
           his defence statement. Inquiry Officer then prepared the
2340                                                        [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          conclusion report as per rules. Inquiry Officer then put the
          conclusion report and Departmental Inquiry before me. I
          examined the Departmental Inquiry and conclusion report
          thoroughly in which Inquiry Officers held Constable Satpal
          Singh, N. 2-C/280 guilty. I am agrees with the conclusion
          report of the Inquiry Officer.
          Due to above allegation a Show Cause Notice vide No.
          6191/Steno, Dated 25.05.1995 to dismiss him from service
          and treat absent period w.e.f. 04.04.1994 to 12.05.1994 as
          Non Duty Period was served upon Constable Satpal Singh
          No. 2-C/280, which was received by Constable Satpal
          Singh, No. 2-C/280 himself. He was given 10 days time
          to submit his reply but till date he did not submit his reply,
          which shows that said Constable accepts the allegations
          against him. Besides above his 17 years service has
          forfeited, 224 days absent period has treated as Non Duty
          Period, 04 Censures, suspension period w.e.f. 23.01.1993
          to 13.09.1993, two Departmental Enquiries are pending in
          this office and one Departmental Enquiry is under process
          due continue absent w.e.f. 04.03.1996.
          After examining above facts I reached at conclusion
          that Constable Satpal Singh, No. 2-C/280, has neither
          interest in service nor he is capable of serving in Police
          Department. Therefore I dismiss Constable Satpal Singh,
          No. 2-C/280 from the service of Police Department w.e.f.
          03.05.1996 forenoon and absent period w.e.f. 04.04.1994
          to 12.05.1994 marks in Non Duty Period.
          Order should be booked”.
                                                               Sd/-
                                                         Commandant
19. This Court, in K. Manche Gowda’s case (supra), has held that if the
    past conduct of an employee is the basis for imposing punishment,
    the department is obliged to disclose that his past record will also be
    taken into consideration while inflicting punishment. Now, the question
    arises for consideration is whether the disciplinary authority had taken
    into consideration the past conduct of the respondent while passing
    the dismissal order. From careful reading of the dismissal order
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                              2341

             State of Punjab and Others v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh


     reproduced hereinabove, it appears that the disciplinary authority
     had clearly observed that it had perused the report of enquiry and
     conclusion thoroughly, whereby the respondent was held guilty for the
     unauthorized absence and agreed with the conclusion of the enquiry
     officer. The disciplinary authority had further mentioned regarding the
     issuance of show cause notice to the respondent and had observed
     that despite the receipt of the show cause notice, the respondent
     did not submit his reply, which shows that the respondent accepted
     the allegation against him. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority had
     noted that 17 years of service of the respondent were forfeited as a
     result of his absence for 224 days and for which he was punished
     accordingly.
20. To properly understand the controversy in the light of question
    framed, it is necessary to examine the relevant judicial precedents,
    as discussed below. This Court in the case of India Marine Services
    Private Ltd. (supra), dealt with the case of punishment awarded to
    an employee in a similar situation, as follows: -
            “7. It is true that the last sentence suggests that the past
            record of Bose has also been taken into consideration. But
            it does not follow from this that that was the effective reason
            for dismissing him. The Managing Director having arrived
            at the conclusion that Bose’s services must be terminated
            in the interest of discipline, he added one sentence to
            give additional weight to the decision already arrived at.
            Upon this view it would follow that the Tribunal was not
            competent to go behind the finding of the Managing Director
            and consider for itself the evidence adduced before him.
            The order of the Tribunal quashing the dismissal of Bose
            and directing his re-instatement is, therefore, set aside as
            being contrary to law.”
21. In the case of Director General, RPF & Ors. vs. Ch. Sai Babu,5
    this Court in appeal while setting aside the order of Division Bench
    of High Court, which had affirmed the order of Single Bench setting
    aside the order of removal of respondent, observed in para 6 as
    under: -



5   (2003) 4 SCC 331
2342                                                         [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


            “6. … Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary
            authority should not be disturbed by the High Court or a
            tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after
            reaching a conclusion that the punishment imposed is
            grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining
            all the relevant factors including the nature of charges
            proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed
            earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard
            to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of and
            discipline required to be maintained, and the department/
            establishment in which the delinquent person concerned
            works.”
22. Similarly, in Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. vs. Uttam Manohar Nakate,6
    wherein the respondent employee was dismissed from service on
    account of misconduct having been found fast asleep on an iron
    plate during working hours and had also been earlier imposed with
    minor punishment on three occasions, this Court observed as under: -
            “32. … In the facts and circumstances of the case and
            having regard to the past conduct of the respondent as
            also his conduct during the domestic enquiry proceedings,
            we cannot say that the quantum of punishment imposed
            upon the respondent was wholly disproportionate to his
            act of misconduct or otherwise arbitrary.”
23. Likewise, in the case of Govt. of A.P. and Ors. vs. Mohd. Taher
    Ali,7 where the respondent who was employed as police constable
    was imposed with a punishment of compulsory retirement on the
    account of unauthorized absenteeism from election duty, this Court
    had held that: -
            “5. ….In our opinion 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 by the punishing authority. Consideration of
            the earlier misconduct is often [necessary] only to reinforce
            the opinion of the said authority.”



6   (2005) 2 SCC 489
7   (2007) 8 SCC 656
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                            2343

            State of Punjab and Others v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh


24. This Cout in Bishamber Das Dogra’s case (supra), has examined
    a similar issue and, after taking into consideration the judgment of
    this Court rendered in K. Manche Gowda’s case (supra) held as
    under: -
           “24.In State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda, this Court held
           that the disciplinary authority should inform the delinquent
           employee that it is likely to take into consideration the past
           conduct of the employee while imposing the punishment
           unless the proved charge against the delinquent is so
           grave that it may independently warrant the proposed
           punishment. Though his previous record may not be the
           subject-matter of the charge at the first instance.

                    xx           xx             xx              xx
           30.In view of the above, it is evident that it is desirable
           that the delinquent employee may be informed by the
           disciplinary authority that his past conduct would be taken
           into consideration while imposing the punishment. But in
           case of misconduct of grave nature or indiscipline, even in
           the absence of statutory rules, the authority may take into
           consideration the indisputable past conduct/service record
           of the employee for adding the weight to the decision of
           imposing the punishment if the facts of the case so require.
                                                [Emphasis Supplied]

           31.It is settled legal proposition that habitual absenteeism
           means gross violation of discipline [vide Burn & Co. Ltd. v.
           Workmen (AIR p. 530, para 5) and L&T Komatsu Ltd. v.
           N. Udayakumar (SCC p. 226, para 6).]
           32.The instant case is required to be examined in the light
           of the aforesaid settled legal propositions.
           33.Admittedly, the respondent employee has not completed
           the service of six years and had been imposed punishment
           three times for remaining absent from duty. On the fourth
           occasion when he remained absent for ten days without
           leave, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against
           him. The show-cause notice could not be served upon
           him for the reason that he again deserted the line and
2344                                                      [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          returned back after fifty days. Therefore the disciplinary
          proceedings could not be concluded expeditiously. The
          respondent submitted the reply to the show-cause notice
          and the material on record reveal that during the pendency
          of the enquiry he further deserted the line for ten days.
          There is nothing on record to show any explanation for such
          repeated misconduct or absenteeism. The court/tribunal
          must keep in mind that such indiscipline is intolerable so
          far as the disciplined force is concerned.
          34. The respondent was a guard in CISF. No attempt had
          ever been made at any stage by the respondent employee
          to explain as to what prejudice has been caused to him
          by non-furnishing of the enquiry report. Nor had he ever
          submitted that such a course has resulted in failure of
          justice. More so, the respondent employee had never
          denied at any stage that he had not been punished three
          times before initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and
          deserted the line twice even after issuance of the show-
          cause notice in the instant case. No explanation could
          be furnished by the respondent employee as under what
          circumstances he has not even considered it proper to
          submit the application for leave. Rather, the respondent
          thought that he had a right to desert the line at his sweet
          will. It was a case of gross violation of discipline. Appeal
          filed by the respondent employee was decided by the
          statutory appellate authority giving cogent reasons.
          35. The facts of the present case did not present special
          features warranting any interference by the Court in limited
          exercise of its powers of judicial review. In such a fact
          situation, we are of the view that the High Court should
          not have interfered with the punishment order passed by
          the disciplinary authority on such technicalities...”
25. As observed, in the present case, the absence of the respondent
    from the duty on various occasions in a short tenure of service of
    around 7 years, is a gross indiscipline on the part of the respondent
    and therefore, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by
    the disciplinary authority whereby the services of the respondent
    have been dismissed.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                          2345

            State of Punjab and Others v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh


26. The facts of Mohd. Yunus Khan’s case (supra), upon which the
    learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance, is based
    on different facts and therefore, is of no help to the respondent. In
    that case, the Administrative Tribunal, examining the punishment
    order, had concluded that the absence of the delinquent for a short
    period was bona fide and legally permissible, but on account of his
    subsequent misconduct and disobedience, held that the dismissal
    order was justified. In that situation, this Court had held that the
    Tribunal, before taking into consideration the past conduct of the
    delinquent, must give notice to the delinquent. In such circumstances,
    the facts of the case of Mohd. Yunus Khan’s case (supra) are
    distinguishable from the case of the respondent.
27. So far as the finding of the High Court that the disciplinary authority
    should have taken into consideration the long service period of
    the respondent is concerned, we agree with the submission of the
    learned counsel for the appellants that the said observation of the
    learned Single Judge is erroneous because as per the materials on
    record, the respondent had served only for a brief period of less
    than 7 years as a Constable and therefore, it cannot be said that
    he served for a long period in the department. The mentioning of
    the forfeiture of 17 years of service in the dismissal order was in
    relation to the punishments imposed upon the respondent in the
    various proceedings for his unauthorised absence, for which he
    would not have been able to get any increment, if he would have
    been in service for a longer period.
28. The reliance on Rule16.2(1) of the Rules of 1934 by the High Court
    is also misplaced while observing that for the purpose of inflicting
    the punishment period of service is required to be taken into
    consideration. For ready reference Rule 16.2 (1) of Rules of 1934
    is quoted hereunder:
           “Rule 16.2 (1) 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.”
29. A plain reading of Rule 16.2(1) of the Rules of 1934 suggests that it
    consists of two parts, the first part where the punishment of dismissal
2346                                                            [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


     can be awarded to the delinquent for the gravest act of misconduct.
     However, in the second part, the punishment can be awarded as a
     cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and
     complete unfitness for police service. While imposing punishment
     for such continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete
     unfitness for police service, the length of service of the offender is
     required to be taken into consideration, which is missing in the case
     of the first part of Rule 16.2(1) of the Rules of 1934.
30. This Court, in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Ram Singh
    Ex- Constable8 while interpreting Rule 16.2(1) of the Rule of 1934
    has held as under: -
            “7.Rule 16.2(1) consists of two parts. The first part is
            referable to gravest acts of misconduct which entails
            awarding an order of dismissal. Undoubtedly there
            is distinction between gravest misconduct and grave
            misconduct. Before awarding an order of dismissal it
            shall be mandatory that dismissal order should be made
            only when there are gravest acts of misconduct, since it
            impinges upon the pensionary rights of the delinquent after
            putting long length of service. As stated the first part relates
            to gravest acts of misconduct. Under General Clauses Act
            singular includes plural, “act” includes acts. The contention
            that there must be plurality of acts of misconduct to award
            dismissal is fastidious. The word “acts” would include
            singular “act” as well. It is not the repetition of the acts
            complained of but its quality, insidious effect and gravity of
            situation that ensues from the offending ‘act’. The colour of
            the gravest act must be gathered from the surrounding or
            attending circumstances. Take for instance the delinquent
            who put in 29 years of continuous length of service and
            had unblemished record; in thirtieth year he commits
            defalcation of public money or fabricates false records to
            conceal misappropriation. He only committed once. Does
            it mean that he should not be inflicted with the punishment
            of dismissal but be allowed to continue in service for that
            year to enable him to get his full pension. The answer


8   (1992) 4 SCC 54
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                          2347

            State of Punjab and Others v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh


           is obviously no. Therefore, a single act of corruption is
           sufficient to award an order of dismissal under the rule
           as gravest act of misconduct.
           8.The second part of the rule connotes the cumulative
           effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and
           complete unfitness for police service and that the length of
           service of the offender and his claim for pension should be
           taken into account in an appropriate case. The contention
           that both parts must be read together appears to us to be
           illogical. Second part is referable to a misconduct minor
           in character which does not by itself warrant an order of
           dismissal but due to continued acts of misconduct would
           have insidious cumulative effect on service morale and may
           be a ground to take lenient view of giving an opportunity to
           reform. Despite giving such opportunities if the delinquent
           officer proved to be incorrigible and found completely
           unfit to remain in service then to maintain discipline in
           the service, instead of dismissing the delinquent officer, a
           lesser punishment of compulsory retirement or demotion
           to a lower grade or rank or removal from service without
           affecting his future chances of re-employment, if any, may
           meet the ends of justice. Take for instance the delinquent
           officer who is habitually absent from duty when required.
           Despite giving an opportunity to reform himself he continues
           to remain absent from duty off and on. He proved himself
           to be incorrigible and thereby unfit to continue in service.
           Therefore, taking into account his long length of service
           and his claim for pension he may be compulsorily retired
           from service so as to enable him to earn proportionate
           pension. The second part of the rule operates in that area.
           It may also be made clear that the very order of dismissal
           from service for gravest misconduct may entail forfeiture
           of all pensionary benefits. Therefore, the word ‘or’ cannot
           be read as “and”. It must be disjunctive and independent.
           The common link that connects both clauses is “the gravest
           act/acts of misconduct.”
31. In light of the judicial precedents cited above, when the factual matrix
    of the present case is appreciated, it is seen that the reference to
2348                                                      [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     the fact of forfeiture of 17 years of service of the respondent as a
     result of his absence from service on previous occasions was in
     exclusion or independent of the misconduct for which the enquiry
     officer has found him guilty. The consideration of the past misconduct
     of the respondent was not the effective reason for dismissing him
     from the service. The disciplinary authority had mentioned the past
     misconduct of the respondent only for adding the weight to the
     decision of imposing the punishment.
32. We have perused the show cause notice and the order of dismissal
    passed against the respondent. After going through the same,
    it is clear that penalty of dismissal is a consequence of proved
    misconduct. Therefore, the order impugned is within the first part
    of Rule 16.2 (1) of the Rules. While passing the order dismissing
    the appeal, the disciplinary authority recorded the finding that
    the act of absence of the respondent from duty is a grievous act
    of misconduct. The respondent was appointed as a constable in
    the Punjab Armed Forces and then transferred to the Commando
    Force, which is a disciplined force. The authority while passing
    the order has referred to his previous act of absence from duty
    besides proving an gravest act of misconduct leading to the order
    of dismissal.
33. In the facts of the present case, it is clear that the respondent was
    dealt by the department earlier on three occasions having remained
    absent from duty and the penalties were inflicted for the same. It is
    the fourth time when he remained absent to which, a chargesheet
    was issued and his guilt was found proved. He himself had not
    cross-examined the departmental witnesses and also had not
    produced any witness in his defense. Considering all these aspects
    and having found proved his misconduct, notice to show cause from
    dismissal was issued to the respondent. The disciplinary authority,
    while imposing the penalty, had merely referred the past conduct
    and also given weight to the gravest act of misconduct. The order
    of dismissal is not based on the charge of “cumulative effect of
    continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness
    for police service”. Therefore, mere reference of the past conduct
    would not amount to constitute dismissal of the respondent based on
    the second limb of Rule 16.2(1). In our view, the High Court was not
    justified to apply the principle of K. Manche Gowda (supra) while
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                       2349

              State of Punjab and Others v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh


     setting aside the judgment passed by the two Courts. As such, it is
     concluded that the dismissal of the respondent was based on gravest
     act of misconduct, for which he was dealt with by the disciplinary
     authority following the procedure as prescribed and in due observance
     of principles of natural justice, hence, we do not find any fault in the
     same. Accordingly, the present appeal stands allowed setting aside
     the judgment of the High Court. In consequence, suit filed by the
     respondent/plaintiff stands dismissed. In the facts, parties to bear
     their own costs.
34. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain