Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Police Constable in Service Discipline Case Due to Habitual Unauthorized Absence. High Court's Interference with Punishment Under Article 226 of Constitution of India, 1950, Set Aside as Exceeding Jurisdiction After Concurring with Factual Findings.

Case Note & Summary

This appeal by special leave arose from a service dispute concerning the removal of a police constable, the first respondent, from the Uttar Pradesh police force. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others were the appellants, challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court which had interfered with the punishment of removal and ordered reinstatement with one-fourth back wages. The Supreme Court of India, in a bench of K. Venkataswami and S.P. Bharucha, considered whether the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying the punishment after concurring with the factual findings of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal. The first respondent was removed from service by an order dated 6 May 1985 following a duly conducted departmental enquiry. The enquiry officer found that he had absented himself from duty on several occasions, totalling 251 days during 1981-82 while posted at police station Ram Sanehi Ghat, 93 days in 1982 while posted at police station Safdarjang, and further absence from 28 February 1984 onwards after being posted again at Ram Sanehi Ghat. He challenged the removal before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal No.5, Lucknow Bench, which by a detailed order dated 29 June 1990 declined to interfere. He then filed Writ Petition No. 9547 of 1990 before the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that he had not been given a reasonable opportunity in the departmental enquiry. The High Court rejected this contention, holding that full opportunity was given, and it concurred with all findings of the Tribunal on the charges. However, the High Court nevertheless interfered with the punishment, observing that the absence from duty would not amount to a grave charge, and that the extreme penalty of removal did not commensurate with the gravity of the charge, particularly because the respondent had offered not to claim arrears of salary and assured faithful discharge of duties. The High Court quashed the dismissal, directed reinstatement with one-fourth back wages, and permitted the authorities to impose a minor punishment. The core legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the High Court could modify the punishment while accepting the findings on charges, and whether the habitual unauthorized absence of a police constable constituted grave misconduct justifying removal. The State argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its own view on punishment; that the respondent was serving in a disciplined force demanding strict adherence to rules; and that his repeated absence without sanctioned leave was a grave charge requiring removal. The respondent had claimed illness and leave applications but had filed no proof before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction. It emphasized that the first respondent was a police constable serving in a disciplined force, where strict adherence to rules and procedures is required more than in any other department. The Court could not appreciate the High Court's observation that absence from duty would not amount to a grave charge, given the repeated and prolonged unauthorized absences. It found no justification for the High Court to interfere with the punishment on the ground of proportionality when the High Court itself had concurred with the factual findings of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court order dated 12 August 1991 in Writ Petition No. 9547 of 1990 and restored the order of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal confirming the removal. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Allahabad High Court order dated 12.8.1991 in W.P. No. 9547/90, and restored the order of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal confirming removal. No order as to costs.

Law Points