Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DHARAM SINGH
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/12/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of
the Punjab & Haryana High Court, made on October 4, 1995 in
Writ Petition No. 9718 of 1994. Action was take under Punjab
Police Rules for taking disciplinary action against the
respondent for his failure to report for duty during
period from November 21, 1991 to October 31, 1992. An
inquiry was conducted against the respondent and it was
conducted against the respondent and it was found that his
absence was wilful. The High Court has set aside his removal
from service on the ground that subsistence allowance was
not paid to him and, therefore, his absence was not wilful.
Rule 16.21 reads as under;
"16.21 - Status and treatment of
officer under suspension - (1) A
police officer shall not by reason
being suspended from office cease
to be a police officer.
During the term of such
suspension the powers, functions
and privileges vested in him as a
police officer shall be in
abeyance, but he shall continue
subject to the same
responsiblities, discipline and to
the same authorities, as if he had
not been suspended."
A reading of it would clearly indicate that even during
the period of suspension the police officer is required to
attend to roll call and be available to the authorities. The
payment of subsistence allowance, as ordered, under the
suspension rule is one facet of it and his duty to be
present is another. No-payment of subsistence allowance does
not entitle a delinquent officer to be absent from duty. It
is his duty to claim subsistence allowances and if it is not
paid, necessary representation to the higher authorities
and, if the grievance is not redressed, to the appropriate
forum seeking payment, may be made. But that does not mean
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
that the delinquent officer, in the face of the express
rule, can absent himself from duty. Under these
circumstances, the conclusion reached by the disciplinary
authority that he was wilfully absent from duty is well
justified. However, on the quantum of punishment imposed, on
the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view
that instead of the removal, compulsorily retirement from
service would be an appropriate punishment.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the
High Court stands set aside. Instead of the order of
removal, the authorities are directed to consider passing an
order compulsorily retiring him from service so that he will
be eligible to the pensionary benefits and other benefits
under the rules, No costs.