The Supreme Court on August 29, 2025, upheld the dismissal of Punjab police commando Satpal Singh for the “gravest act of misconduct” of remaining absent from duty without authorization. Court clarified that a disciplinary authority’s reference to past misconducts does not invalidate a dismissal order when the penalty is based on the primary charge proved in the inquiry.
"Mere mentioning of past misconducts cannot be attributed to have formed the basis of adverse action against the delinquent employee," the bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi said.
Court set aside a 2010 Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling that had reinstated Singh. The High Court had held that while passing the termination order, the disciplinary authority had impermissibly taken into account Singh’s earlier misconducts, which were not disclosed in the show cause notice.
Rejecting that reasoning, the top court observed, "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".
Satpal Singh was appointed as a constable in the Punjab Armed Forces on August 4, 1989, and transferred to the Commando Force in 1992. In 1994, he was sanctioned one day’s leave but overstayed for about 37 days. Following an inquiry, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service on May 3, 1995. His appeal and revision petitions were rejected.
He then filed a civil suit seeking reinstatement, but both the Additional District Judge (2003) and the District Judge (2004) dismissed his claims. In a second appeal, however, a single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2010 ruled in Singh’s favour.
The High Court solely relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Mysore vs. K. Manche Gowda (1964), which 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.
The Supreme court held the High Court was not justified to apply the principle of K. Manche Gowda while setting aside the judgment passed by the two courts, as the disciplinary authority, while imposing the penalty, had merely referred to the past conduct and also given weight to the gravest act of misconduct.
The bench found no fault with the dismissal of the respondent, holding it was based on the 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.
Examining the Punjab government's appeal, the bench noted that from careful reading of the dismissal order, it appeared 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 unauthorised absence and agreed with the conclusion of the enquiry officer.
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, the court pointed out.
"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,'' the bench said.
Court also found the single judge's observation on long period of service as 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,'' the court said.
The bench also found the reliance on Rule16.2(1) of Punjab Rules, 1934 by the High Court as misplaced.
Court pointed out Rule 16.2(1) of the Rules of 1934 consists of two parts, the first part where the punishment of dismissal 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,'' it noted.
Court held the reference to 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 bench noted that it was clear that penalty of dismissal was a consequence of proved misconduct. The disciplinary authority recorded the finding that the act of absence of the respondent from duty was a grievous act of misconduct.
"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,'' the court said.
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 was the fourth time when he remained absent to which, a chargesheet was issued and his guilt was found proved, the apex court pointed out.
The bench finally held the order of dismissal was 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), it held.
Case Title: State of Punjab And Others Vs Ex C Satpal Singh
Judgment Date: August 29, 2025
Bench: Justices J K Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi