Supreme Court: Past Misconduct Can Be Considered to Justify Dismissal Even If Not Mentioned in Show Cause Notice

Introduction

In a significant ruling on service law and disciplinary proceedings, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that past misconduct of an employee can be taken into account to justify dismissal from service, even if such misconduct is not explicitly referred to in the show cause notice. The judgment, delivered by a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, set aside a Punjab & Haryana High Court order that had directed reinstatement of a dismissed constable.

The Court emphasized that when an employee is found guilty of serious indiscipline, the disciplinary authority is entitled to consider past records to reinforce its decision. The ruling reiterates that natural justice principles are not violated merely because prior misconduct was not listed in the show cause notice, provided that the punishment is based on the proven charge.

This judgment, in State of Punjab and Others v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 857], is a crucial precedent for cases involving unauthorized absence, repeated misconduct, and proportionality of punishment in service law.

Case Background

The respondent, Ex-Constable Satpal Singh, was appointed in 1989 in the Punjab Police and later transferred to the Punjab Commando Force. His service tenure was marked by a series of unauthorized absences, which cumulatively exceeded 300 days within a short span of around seven years. The absences included:

• 68 days of absence on one occasion,
• 180 days of absence in another spell,
• 20 days of absence, and finally,
• 37 days of absence in 1994, despite having been granted only one day’s leave.

Due to these repeated acts of indiscipline, departmental proceedings were initiated against him. The inquiry held him guilty of unauthorized absence, and the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service, citing the 37-day absence as the primary ground but also noting his past record of misconduct.

High Court’s Decision

The Punjab & Haryana High Court intervened and ordered his reinstatement. The High Court held that since the past record of indiscipline was not specifically included in the show cause notice, the disciplinary authority’s reliance on it amounted to a violation of natural justice.

The High Court reasoned that an employee must be informed of every ground on which punishment is based so that he can defend himself. Thus, it considered the dismissal order disproportionate and directed reinstatement.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s interpretation and allowed the appeal filed by the State of Punjab.

Key observations from the judgment include:

1. Past misconduct adds weight to dismissal

• The Court clarified that while the primary ground of dismissal was the 37-day unauthorized absence, the disciplinary authority was well within its right to refer to past misconduct to strengthen the reasoning behind the punishment.
• Justice Vijay Bishnoi, authoring the judgment, 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.”

1. No violation of natural justice

• The Court held that since the dismissal was based on a proved charge (37-day unauthorized absence), merely citing past misconduct for reinforcing the penalty did not breach the principles of natural justice.

1. Gravest misconduct justifies dismissal

• The Court noted that repeated unauthorized absence within a short service span amounts to gross indiscipline.
• It concluded that dismissal was proportionate, as unauthorized absence undermines discipline in armed and uniformed forces.

1. High Court erred in reinstatement

• The Court held that the High Court wrongly treated reliance on past conduct as illegal.
• Accordingly, the reinstatement order was set aside, and the dismissal of the constable was upheld.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

This ruling carries wider implications for disciplinary proceedings in public services, particularly in police and armed forces where discipline is paramount.

• Proven misconduct is sufficient for dismissal: Once an employee is found guilty of grave misconduct, dismissal can follow even without detailing prior acts in the notice.
• Past records can be considered: Past misconduct, though not forming the basis of the charge, can be referred to as an additional factor while determining the severity of punishment.
• Natural justice is not absolute: The principles of natural justice require fairness but do not mean that every historical detail must be included in the show cause notice if the dismissal rests on a proved charge.
• High standards for uniformed forces: The ruling underlines that unauthorized absence in the police force amounts to serious indiscipline and can justify the extreme penalty of dismissal.

Legal Precedent and Comparative Analysis

The judgment aligns with earlier precedents where the Supreme Court recognized the role of past misconduct in disciplinary proceedings:

• In Union of India v. Parma Nanda (1989), the Court held that previous service records could be considered in determining punishment.
• In State of Punjab v. Ram Singh (1992), the Court emphasized that unauthorized absence is a serious misconduct, especially in disciplined forces.
• Similarly, in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. R. Dhandapani (2006), the Court observed that past records can aggravate the seriousness of misconduct.

The present case builds upon these rulings, reiterating that past indiscipline strengthens the justification for dismissal.

Impact of the Judgment

1. For Government Employers:

• The decision empowers disciplinary authorities to cite past misconduct while imposing penalties, even if not included in the charge sheet.
• It ensures stricter discipline in uniformed services.

1. For Employees:

• The ruling signals that repeated acts of misconduct, particularly unauthorized absence, will have severe consequences.
• Employees cannot escape punishment by arguing technicalities like omission of past misconduct in the show cause notice.

1. For Courts:

• High Courts will have limited scope to interfere with disciplinary penalties when misconduct is clearly established.
• Judicial review will focus on procedural fairness rather than substitution of the disciplinary authority’s reasoning.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab v. Ex. Constable Satpal Singh is a landmark ruling on disciplinary jurisprudence. By upholding dismissal based on unauthorized absence and recognizing that past misconduct can be considered even if not part of the show cause notice, the Court has strengthened the authority of disciplinary bodies.

The judgment balances the principle of natural justice with the necessity of discipline in public service, particularly in police and paramilitary forces. It sends a strong message that repeated misconduct cannot be excused on technical grounds and that employees entrusted with sensitive responsibilities must maintain the highest standards of discipline.

Also Read

Supreme Court Orders Seizure of High Court Judge’s Secretary’s Steno Book in Rare Move to Ascertain Uploading of Order

Supreme Court Regularises MBBS Degree of Student Despite Cancelled ST Certificate, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost on Father