A division bench comprising Justice S Saghir Ahmad and Justice S Rajendra Babu has asked the Punjab Government to reinstate a police constable, who was dismissed from service after a regular departmental inquiry on the charge of unauthorised absence from duty.

The court observed that ``the trial court as also the lower appellate court had both recorded the findings that the period of absence from duty having been regularised and converted into leave without pay, the charge of absence from duty did not survive''.

The lower appellate court, however, remanded the case to the authority concerned for passing a fresh order of punishment to be awarded to the constable, Bakshish Singh, after holding that absence from duty was not a misconduct of the gravest kind but a meremisconduct.

The apex court, setting aside the lower appellate court's finding, said ``once it was found as a fact that the charges of unauthorised absence from duty did not survive, we fail to understand how the lower appellate court could remand the matter back to the punishing authority for passing a fresh order on punishment''.

There was no occasion to remand the case to the punishing authority ``in face of the findings, specially the findings of the trial court that proper opportunity of hearing was not given and the signatures of the respondents were obtained under duress during departmental proceedings which have not been set aside by the lower appellate court,'' it said.

Regarding the appeal of the respondent being dismissed by the high court, the apex court said, ``The high court did not avert itself to this inconsistency as it dismissed the appeal summarily, which indirectly reflects that it (the high court) allowed an inconsistent judgement to pass through its scrutiny''.

The Supreme Courtupheld the trial court finding that unauthorised absence from duty having been regularised by treating the period of absence as leave without pay, the charge of misconduct did not survive.