In a recent ruling, the high court has dismissed a petition requesting relief brought forth by an ex-police officer from Haryana who insisted on being sick by ghosts which made him remain away from work for more than twelve months, although in its recent judgment came out that such prolonged absenteeism was regarded as the most serious offence hence the decision of the court was to uphold his termination letter from employment.
Formerly, Surinder Pal had been employed by the Hisar Superintendent’s office. Pal was absent from duty during or between 25th December – 28th December 1989 and January 22nd 1990 – March 27th 1991. In his professional police career, Surinder Pal was fired from duty on the 13th day of December 1991 after many internal investigations that targeted at establishing his professional integrity.
Pal first appealed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range, but his appeal was rejected on October 17, 1992. He then filed a revision petition before the Director General of Police, Haryana, which was also rejected on February 21, 1993. Subsequently, Pal challenged these orders in the Civil Judge’s court in Hisar. On March 20, 1998, this court dismissed his plea, noting his failure to provide medical evidence for his claimed illness.
High Court Ruling
Submitting a petition before the higher judiciary, Amaninder Singh Sekhon who is Pal’s advocate, submitted that the findings were misconceived by the magistrates of the subordinate judiciary. In support of his case, he said that there was an allegation that his client was under demonic attack hence he could not work normally. Counsel for Sekhon also told the court that the disciplinary proceedings were illegal and lacked fairness as it was not conducted in accordance with rules and rules of fair play.
The state counsel countered that a member of a disciplined force remaining absent from duty for an extended period is a severe breach of conduct, justifying the dismissal.
Justice Namit Kumar, presiding over the case, emphasized that the absence from duty was a significant act of misconduct. “He explained that the denotation ‘misconduct’ should be read in the widest sense – to include any misdeed pro tanto that undermines the process of adjudication.” The jury found out that the discharge of Pal from the employment was neither too severe nor more than enough for his actions.
Court’s Decision
The High Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and departmental authorities, affirming that due process was followed. The court ruled that Pal’s prolonged absence, without valid medical evidence or justification, warranted his dismissal.
Justice Kumar reiterated that any undue sympathy towards such misconduct could undermine the discipline within the police force. Thus, Pal’s appeal was dismissed, and his dismissal from service was deemed appropriate.
Conclusion
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s stance on maintaining discipline within the police force. It highlights that claims of supernatural occurrences, without substantial evidence, do not exempt individuals from accountability for their duties. The decision serves as a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing the importance of discipline and adherence to duty in law enforcement.
