43 years on, HC upholds dismissal of Patwari absent from duty for a year

More than four decades of litigation over a Patwari’s year-long absence in 1982–84 has finally ended with the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing his Regular Second Appeal filed in 1998.

Justice Vikas Bahl upheld the dismissal from service ordered in January 1987, while referring to the legal proposition that “civil Courts are not to sit as a Court of Appeal over the report of the inquiry officer and the orders passed by the Competent Authority”.

The Patwari had been transferred to the SYL Canal Project on November 29, 1982, but joined duty only on December 30, 1983. He again remained absent from January 2 to 17, 1984.

After a departmental inquiry found him guilty on three charges, the Collector, Ludhiana, ordered his dismissal on January 7, 1987. The Commissioner, Patiala Division, dismissed his appeal on December 5, 1990, terming it “a case of severe indiscipline.”

A civil suit challenging the dismissal was decreed by the trial court in September 1995, which was of the opinion that a minor penalty could have been imposed.

The first appellate court reversed the decision in April 1998, setting the stage for the Regular Second Appeal.

Filed in 1998, the appeal remained pending until its dismissal on August 19, 2025, long after the appellant’s death, with his legal representatives pursuing the matter.

Justice Bahl quoted the Supreme Court ruling in B C Chaturvedi versus Union of India as saying that “the Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings”.

Noting that the appellant had no sanctioned leave for the long absence, the court held that “the punishment awarded can neither be stated to be excessive nor disproportionate”.

Concluding that the order of dismissal suffered from no illegality or perversity, Justice Bahl added: “The judgment passed by the 1st Appellate Court is in accordance with law and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity nor is against law and thus, deserves to be upheld”.