STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. Vs. NIRMAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NIRMAL Singh was constable in the Punjab Police on the rolls of Distt. Police, Amritsar. His constabulary number was 2506/Amsr.He joined the police force on 11.4.1966. In September, 1983, he was put on general duty at Police Lines Amritsar. On 4.9.1983 at 8.15 PM when roll calls took place, he was found absent. Factum of his absence was recorded into the daily roznamcha against report No. 39 at 8.15 P.M. dated 4.9.1983. He reported back for duty on 4.2.1984 i.e., after he had remained absent from duty for a period of 5 months 1 day 22 hours and 15 minutes. On the charge of absence from duty, he was departmentally dealt with. There was regular inquiry into his conduct. On the conclusion of the regular inquiry, he was found guilty of the charge of absence from duty, SSP, Amritsar vide order dated October 25, 1984 dismissed him from service. Order passed by the SSP, Amritsar dated 25.10.84 dismissing him from service is highly laconic as he has not adverted at all the provisions of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules. According to Rule 16.2, 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.) IN this case, there was no charge that he was ever absent from duty earlier. It is true that a single act of misconduct can also entail dismissal of the member of a police force from service but it should be a grave act of misconduct. In this case, single act of absence from duty cannot be viewed as a grave act of misconduct. There is nothing on the record to suggest that he was incorrigible and had rendered himself completely unfit for police service. Although he had put in about 17 years of service on the date of absence from duty, SSP, Amritsar did not advert at all to his eligibility to the grant of pension for having put in the said number of years of service.

(3.) IT was held in State of Punjab v. Parkash Chand, Constable, 1992(1) SLR 174 that where in the impugned order the punishing authority has not recorded any finding that the act of the delinquent amounted to the gravest act of misconduct, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is essential for the punishing authority to apply its mind and record a specific findings as to whether the act of the delinquent official which has been complained of is of such a grave nature that it must lead inflexibly to his dismissal. Gravest act of misconduct must imply a matter of utmost seriousness.