Can a police constable medically reassigned challenge his conviction under the Essential Services Act through a criminal revision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Sources
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Case Analysis: Read case analysis

Suppose a police constable who is stationed at a remote border outpost is ordered by his superior to stand guard at the main gate of the outpost during the night of a public holiday, despite having been medically certified as unfit for night duty because of a chronic respiratory condition that worsens in cold weather. The constable informs the duty officer that a senior medical officer has recommended that he be assigned to indoor administrative duties during the night shift, and the duty officer acknowledges the recommendation and re‑assigns the constable to the outpost’s records room. Later that night, a surprise roll‑call is conducted, and the constable is found absent from the gate area. The investigating agency files a First Information Report alleging that the constable disobeyed a lawful order and was absent from duty without reasonable excuse, invoking the State’s Essential Services (Maintenance) Act.

The constable is subsequently tried before a First Class Magistrate, who convicts him under the Act for “absence from work without reasonable excuse” and imposes a short term of rigorous imprisonment. The constable appeals the conviction to the Sessions Court, arguing that the Act does not apply to police personnel whose duties are governed by the Police Act, and that the medical recommendation and the subsequent re‑assignment constitute a reasonable excuse. The Sessions Court, however, upholds the conviction, holding that the Essential Services Act is a special law that applies to all State Government employees, including police constables, and that the constable’s failure to appear at the gate constitutes a breach of duty.

At this stage, the constable’s ordinary factual defence—that he was medically unfit and had been reassigned—does not suffice to overturn the conviction because the conviction rests on a statutory interpretation of the Essential Services Act, specifically whether the Act covers police constables and whether a written complaint by an authorised officer satisfies the procedural requirement of Section 7(3) of the Act. The conviction therefore hinges on a question of law that can only be resolved by a higher judicial authority capable of interpreting the statutory scheme and the validity of the complaint lodged by the investigating agency.

Consequently, the appropriate procedural remedy is to file a criminal revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, challenging the Sessions Court’s judgment on the ground that the conviction is unsustainable in law. A revision is the correct route because the conviction was rendered by a court exercising jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code, and the constable seeks to have the judgment set aside on the basis of a legal error rather than on fresh factual evidence. The revision petition will specifically question (i) whether the written complaint filed by the senior officer of the investigating agency was made by a person duly authorised under the Essential Services Act, and (ii) whether the Act, by virtue of its opening clause, extends to police constables whose service conditions are governed by a separate police legislation.

In preparing the revision, the constable engages a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court who drafts a petition that meticulously cites the statutory provisions, prior judgments interpreting the scope of the Essential Services Act, and the medical evidence establishing the constable’s inability to perform night guard duties. The petition argues that the senior officer who lodged the complaint did not possess the specific authorisation required by Section 7(3), as the notification authorising complaints was limited to officers of a higher rank than the one who filed the FIR. Moreover, the petition contends that the Act’s definition of “work” presupposes an assigned duty, which was absent in this case because the constable’s night duty had been lawfully cancelled on medical grounds.

The revision also raises the point that the conviction, if sustained, would create an anomalous overlap between the Essential Services Act and the Police Act, leading to double jeopardy for the same conduct. The constable’s counsel emphasizes that the High Court has the jurisdiction to examine whether the Sessions Court erred in law by conflating the two statutes, and to quash the conviction if such an error is established. The petition therefore seeks a declaration that the conviction is void, an order directing the release of the constable from custody, and a direction that the investigating agency withdraw the FIR.

Why is a simple appeal under the ordinary appellate route insufficient? An ordinary appeal would merely review the factual findings and the application of law by the Sessions Court, but the crux of the dispute lies in the interpretation of the statutory authorisation requirement and the applicability of the Essential Services Act to police personnel. The High Court, as the apex court of the State, possesses the authority to interpret the statute and to determine the validity of the complaint, a question that is pivotal to the existence of the offence itself. Hence, the remedy must be sought directly before the Punjab and Haryana High Court through a revision, which is the statutory mechanism for correcting errors of law made by subordinate courts.

In addition, the constable’s counsel points out that the High Court has the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash proceedings that are manifestly illegal or unconstitutional. By filing the revision, the constable invokes this inherent power to challenge the legality of the FIR and the subsequent conviction, arguing that the FIR was not cognizable because the essential element of a valid authorised complaint was missing.

The revision petition is supported by a thorough legal brief prepared by a team of lawyers in Chandigarh High Court who have experience in handling essential services matters and police service cases. Their expertise ensures that the petition accurately frames the legal questions, cites relevant precedents where High Courts have held that the Essential Services Act does not apply to police officers performing duties under the Police Act, and distinguishes those cases from the present facts where the constable’s duty was cancelled on medical grounds.

When the revision is filed, the Punjab and Haryana High Court will first consider whether the petition discloses a substantial question of law warranting its intervention. If the court finds merit in the arguments, it may issue a notice to the State, directing the prosecution to respond to the specific contentions regarding the authorisation of the complaint and the applicability of the Act. The High Court may also stay the execution of the sentence pending the final determination of the revision, thereby protecting the constable’s liberty.

Should the High Court accept the revision, it is likely to follow the reasoning of earlier judgments that emphasise the necessity of a valid authorising notification for a complaint under Section 7(3). It may hold that the senior officer who lodged the FIR was not empowered to do so, rendering the entire proceeding ultra vires. Furthermore, the court may reaffirm that “absence from work” requires the existence of an assigned duty, and that the cancellation of night guard duty on medical grounds eliminates any such assignment, thereby providing a reasonable excuse for the constable’s absence.

In the event that the High Court quashes the conviction, the constable will be released from any remaining custodial consequences, and the prosecution will be barred from instituting fresh proceedings on the same facts, as the doctrine of res judicata will apply. The decision will also clarify the scope of the Essential Services Act, preventing future misuse of the statute against police personnel whose duties are governed by separate legislation.

Thus, the fictional scenario illustrates how a criminal revision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court serves as the proper procedural avenue to address a conviction that rests on a contested statutory interpretation. By engaging a specialised lawyer in Chandigarh High Court and presenting a well‑crafted revision petition, the accused can effectively challenge the legal foundations of the conviction, seek quashing of the FIR, and secure relief that an ordinary factual defence could not achieve at the trial stage.

Question: Does the written complaint filed by the senior officer of the investigating agency satisfy the statutory authorisation requirement under the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, and what is the legal significance of that requirement for the conviction?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the constable was charged after a senior officer of the investigating agency lodged a written complaint alleging absence from duty. The Essential Services (Maintenance) Act contains a procedural gate‑keeping provision that bars a court from taking cognizance of an offence unless the complaint is made by a person expressly authorised by the State Government. The legal significance of this requirement is that it determines the very existence of a prosecutable offence; without a valid authorised complaint, the prosecution cannot proceed, and any subsequent conviction would be ultra vires. In the present case, the senior officer who filed the complaint was a police constable of rank lower than that contemplated in the State’s notification, which limited authorisation to officers of a higher grade. The constable’s counsel, a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, will argue that the notification is a statutory instrument that must be strictly construed, and that the officer’s lack of statutory authority renders the complaint defective. Jurisprudence from comparable jurisdictions holds that a defective complaint cannot be cured by later judicial interpretation, because the authorisation requirement is a jurisdictional pre‑condition. Moreover, the High Court has inherent power under the Criminal Procedure Code to quash proceedings that are manifestly illegal, and a defective complaint falls squarely within that category. If the revision petition establishes that the complaint was unauthorised, the High Court would be compelled to set aside the FIR, nullify the trial proceedings, and order the release of the constable. The practical implication for the prosecution is that it would lose its evidentiary foundation, while the accused would obtain relief without needing to prove the substantive elements of the offence. Thus, the authorisation requirement is a decisive legal hurdle that must be satisfied before any conviction can stand.

Question: To what extent does the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act extend to a police constable whose service conditions are regulated by the Police Act, and does the statutory opening clause create a conflict of laws?

Answer: The core factual dispute concerns whether a police constable, whose duties are ordinarily governed by the Police Act, falls within the ambit of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act. The Act’s opening clause states that it applies to all employment under the State Government, which on its face includes police personnel because they are state employees. However, the police force operates under a distinct statutory scheme that prescribes discipline, duties, and penalties, leading to a potential overlap. The constable’s counsel, a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, will contend that the two statutes cannot be read to impose dual liability for the same conduct, as that would violate the principle against double jeopardy. The High Court has previously held that when a special law like the Essential Services Act is applied to a class of employees already covered by a dedicated police statute, the special law must be interpreted narrowly to avoid encroaching on the police’s exclusive regulatory regime. In this scenario, the constable was reassigned to indoor duties on medical grounds, a decision made under the Police Act’s provisions for health and welfare. The Essential Services Act, designed to protect essential public services from disruption, does not contemplate medical reassignments within the police hierarchy. Consequently, the statutory opening clause, while broad, must be read in harmony with the Police Act, limiting its application to situations where the police function is not already regulated. If the revision petition successfully demonstrates that the Act’s scope does not extend to the constable’s specific circumstances, the High Court would likely declare the conviction unsustainable, thereby preserving the integrity of the separate police disciplinary framework. The practical outcome would be the quashing of the conviction and a clarification that the Essential Services Act cannot be used to penalise police personnel for matters already governed by the Police Act.

Question: Does the medical reassignment of the constable to indoor duties constitute a reasonable excuse that negates the element of “absence from work” under the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act?

Answer: The factual record indicates that the constable suffered from a chronic respiratory condition, supported by a medical certificate recommending indoor duties during night shifts. The duty officer complied with this recommendation and reassigned the constable to the records room, effectively cancelling his night guard assignment. The Essential Services (Maintenance) Act penalises “absence from work without reasonable excuse,” which presupposes that the accused had an assigned duty from which he was absent. The constable’s defence hinges on the argument that, at the time of the roll‑call, there was no lawful assignment for him to perform, and therefore the statutory element of “absence from work” was not satisfied. Lawyers in Chandigarh High Court will emphasise that the medical reassignment is a statutory accommodation that creates a legitimate excuse, analogous to a leave of absence granted under employment law. Jurisprudence holds that a reasonable excuse includes medical incapacity where the employer, or an authorised officer, has formally altered the work schedule. Moreover, the High Court’s power to interpret the statutory term “work” allows it to conclude that “work” implies an active duty order, not a mere contractual relationship. Since the constable’s night duty was lawfully cancelled, his physical presence at the gate was not required, and his absence cannot be characterised as a breach. The practical implication is that, if the revision petition establishes this reasoning, the conviction would be set aside on the ground that a key element of the offence was absent. The prosecution would be barred from re‑initiating proceedings on the same facts, and the constable would be vindicated, reinforcing the principle that medical reassignment provides a reasonable excuse under the Act.

Question: Why is a criminal revision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the appropriate remedy rather than an ordinary appeal, and what procedural advantages does it afford the accused?

Answer: The procedural history shows that the constable was convicted by a First Class Magistrate, affirmed by a Sessions Court, and now seeks relief. An ordinary appeal would primarily review the factual findings and the application of law by the lower courts, but the pivotal dispute concerns the interpretation of statutory authorisation and the scope of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act—pure questions of law. A criminal revision is a statutory remedy that enables a High Court to examine jurisdictional errors, mis‑interpretation of statutes, and procedural irregularities that affect the validity of the conviction. The constable’s counsel, a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, will argue that the Sessions Court erred in law by conflating the Essential Services Act with the Police Act and by overlooking the defect in the complaint’s authorisation. The High Court, exercising its inherent powers under the Criminal Procedure Code, can quash the conviction, stay execution of the sentence, and direct the release of the accused without the need for a full rehearing of evidence. This procedural route also allows the High Court to address the broader public interest issue of statutory overreach, thereby providing a definitive clarification of law that will guide future enforcement. Additionally, a revision petition can be entertained even after the appellate remedy is exhausted, offering a final avenue for redress. The practical advantage for the accused is the possibility of immediate relief, preservation of liberty, and the removal of the FIR if the court finds the complaint unauthorised. For the prosecution, the revision forces a rigorous legal scrutiny of the statutory framework, ensuring that convictions are not based on misinterpretations. Consequently, the criminal revision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court is the most suitable and effective remedy for correcting the legal errors that underlie the constable’s conviction.

Question: Why does the constable need to file a criminal revision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court instead of pursuing a routine appellate remedy, given the factual backdrop of the medical reassignment and the conviction?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the conviction rests on a legal interpretation of whether the Essential Services Act extends to police personnel and whether the written complaint satisfied the authorisation requirement. A routine appeal from the Sessions Court would primarily re‑examine the evidence and the application of law as it stood at trial, but it would not allow the higher court to re‑evaluate the statutory construction that underpins the offence. The revision mechanism is expressly designed to correct errors of law committed by subordinate courts, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court possesses the inherent power to intervene when a judgment is manifestly erroneous. By invoking revision, the constable can raise the precise question of whether the senior officer who lodged the FIR was duly empowered, and whether the Act’s opening clause embraces a constable whose duties are governed by a separate police statute. This route also enables the High Court to consider the doctrine of double jeopardy that arises from overlapping statutes, a point that cannot be fully addressed in a standard appeal focused on factual credibility. Moreover, the High Court can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to stay the execution of the sentence, thereby preserving the constable’s liberty while the legal issues are examined. Engaging a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court ensures that the petition is framed in compliance with the procedural requisites for revision, such as demonstrating a substantial question of law and furnishing the necessary annexures. The revision therefore offers a focused avenue to challenge the legal foundations of the conviction, a strategy that a simple appeal would not accommodate.

Question: How does the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court enable it to scrutinise the validity of the complaint lodged by the senior officer under the Essential Services Act, and why is this scrutiny essential in the present case?

Answer: The Punjab and Haryana High Court, as the apex judicial authority of the State, has the power to interpret statutes and to determine the legality of proceedings initiated under them. In the present scenario the senior officer’s written complaint is the gateway to criminal liability; if the complaint does not meet the statutory authorisation condition, the entire prosecution is ultra vires. The High Court’s jurisdiction includes the authority to examine the existence and scope of any government notification that confers authorisation on officers to lodge complaints. This examination is essential because the investigating agency relied on a senior officer whose rank may fall short of the threshold prescribed by the authorising instrument. By reviewing the legislative intent and the administrative practice surrounding the Essential Services Act, the High Court can decide whether the complaint was validly made. If the court finds the complaint defective, it can invoke its inherent power to quash the proceedings, thereby nullifying the conviction. The constable’s counsel, a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, will therefore structure the revision petition to highlight the discrepancy between the officer’s rank and the authorisation requirement, attaching copies of the relevant notification and medical orders. This approach ensures that the High Court’s supervisory function is exercised to correct a procedural defect that the lower courts could not rectify, safeguarding the principle that criminal liability must arise only from a validly authorised complaint.

Question: What practical benefits does retaining a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court provide to the constable when preparing and filing the revision petition, especially in relation to procedural nuances and advocacy before the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Answer: Retaining a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court brings specialised knowledge of the local court rules, filing deadlines, and the procedural etiquette that govern revision petitions. The lawyer in Chandigarh High Court is accustomed to drafting petitions that satisfy the High Court’s requirements for a prima facie question of law, attaching the necessary annexures, and complying with the format prescribed by the registry. This expertise reduces the risk of procedural objections that could otherwise delay or dismiss the petition. Moreover, the lawyer can liaise with the constable to gather medical certificates, the written reassignment order, and the notification authorising complaints, ensuring that the factual matrix is presented coherently. The counsel’s familiarity with the High Court’s bench composition also aids in tailoring arguments that resonate with the judges’ precedents on statutory interpretation. In addition, the lawyer can coordinate with a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court to align the legal strategy, ensuring that the petition’s relief sought – quashing of the conviction, release from custody, and withdrawal of the FIR – is articulated with precision. This collaborative approach leverages the procedural acumen of the Chandigarh counsel and the substantive expertise of the Punjab and Haryana High Court counsel, creating a robust advocacy front that maximises the chances of the High Court granting a stay and eventually setting aside the conviction.

Question: In what manner does the procedural route of filing a revision safeguard the constable’s liberty and affect the prosecution’s ability to continue the case, given the interplay of bail, custody, and the High Court’s supervisory powers?

Answer: The revision petition triggers the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction, which includes the power to stay the execution of a sentence pending determination of the legal issues raised. Once the constable’s counsel files the revision, the High Court may issue an interim order that releases the constable from custody or suspends the rigorous imprisonment, thereby protecting his personal liberty while the substantive questions are adjudicated. This stay also curtails the prosecution’s ability to enforce the sentence or to commence fresh proceedings on the same facts, because the High Court can direct the investigating agency to withdraw the FIR if it finds the complaint invalid. The procedural safeguard is reinforced by the inherent power of the High Court to quash proceedings that are manifestly illegal, which means that even if the prosecution attempts to file a fresh charge, the earlier judicial finding of a procedural defect would bar re‑institution under the principle of res judicata. The constable’s lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court will therefore emphasise the need for an immediate stay, citing the risk of irreversible harm to the constable’s reputation and freedom. By securing a stay, the constable remains out of custody, can continue his service, and avoids the stigma of a conviction that may later be set aside. The High Court’s ability to render a declaratory order also provides a definitive resolution that prevents the prosecution from exploiting procedural loopholes, thereby ensuring that the legal dispute is conclusively resolved.

Question: What procedural defects exist in the FIR and the written complaint under the Essential Services Act that can be highlighted in a criminal revision before the Punjab and Haryana High Court?

Answer: The factual matrix shows that the investigating agency lodged an FIR alleging disobedience of a lawful order, yet the Essential Services Act requires a written complaint made by a person expressly authorised by a State Government notification. In the present case, the senior officer who filed the FIR was a duty officer of a rank lower than that specified in the notification that limits authorisation to officers of a higher grade. This discrepancy creates a fundamental procedural defect because the High Court, through its inherent power, must ensure that the statutory pre‑condition of a valid complaint is satisfied before cognizance can be taken. Moreover, the FIR was registered without attaching the medical certificate that had been submitted to the duty officer and without referencing the subsequent re‑assignment to the records room. The omission of this critical document defeats the requirement that the complaint disclose the factual basis for the alleged offence. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court must therefore examine the original notification, the chain of command, and the exact wording of the complaint to demonstrate that the authorising requirement was not met. If the High Court is persuaded that the complaint was ultra vires, the entire proceeding becomes void, and the revision petition can seek a quashing of the FIR and the conviction on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The procedural defect also impacts the Sessions Court’s reliance on the FIR, as the conviction was predicated on an infirm complaint. Highlighting these defects not only attacks the legal foundation of the charge but also aligns with the High Court’s power to intervene where a lower court has acted on an illegal premise, thereby providing a robust avenue for relief.

Question: How can the medical evidence and the re‑assignment to indoor duties be used to establish a reasonable excuse and defeat the element of “absence from work” under the Essential Services Act?

Answer: The medical certificate issued by the senior medical officer explicitly states that the constable suffers from a chronic respiratory condition aggravated by cold weather, rendering night guard duty hazardous to his health. This certificate was the basis for the duty officer’s decision to re‑assign the constable to the records room, an indoor posting that effectively cancelled the night guard assignment. In the legal context, “absence from work” requires that the accused had an assigned duty from which he was absent without a reasonable excuse. The re‑assignment demonstrates that no duty existed at the time of the roll‑call, thereby negating the factual element of the offence. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court can argue that the medical evidence creates a statutory defence of reasonable excuse, as the constable complied with the medical recommendation and the administrative order to remain indoors. The prosecution’s case hinges on the assumption that the constable was still bound to guard duty, an assumption that collapses once the re‑assignment is proven. Additionally, the constable’s presence in the records room can be corroborated by log‑books, CCTV footage, and testimonies of colleagues, establishing that he was not “absent” but merely performing a different, authorised task. By presenting a chronological timeline of the medical recommendation, the re‑assignment order, and the constable’s actual location, the defence can demonstrate that the statutory element of “absence from work” was never satisfied. This strategy not only undermines the conviction but also aligns with the High Court’s precedent that “absence” must be measured against an existing assignment, thereby providing a compelling ground for quashing the judgment.

Question: What are the risks of the conviction persisting regarding double jeopardy and overlapping statutes, and how can a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court argue for quashing on that ground?

Answer: The conviction under the Essential Services Act coexists with the disciplinary framework of the Police Act, creating a potential double jeopardy scenario where the same conduct is punished twice under two different statutes. The constable’s alleged failure to appear at the gate was already subject to internal police disciplinary mechanisms, and the Essential Services Act imposes a criminal penalty for the same act. This overlap raises a constitutional concern that the State cannot impose multiple punishments for a single act without clear legislative intent. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court can invoke the doctrine of double jeopardy, emphasizing that the High Court has the authority to strike down a conviction that results in cumulative punishment. The argument would focus on the principle that the Essential Services Act was intended for “special cases of dislocation of essential services,” not for routine police duties governed by the Police Act. By demonstrating that the statutory purpose of the Essential Services Act does not encompass ordinary police guard duties, the counsel can show that the conviction is ultra vires and that the overlapping statutes create an impermissible double jeopardy. Moreover, the High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings that are manifestly illegal can be invoked, highlighting that the conviction undermines the legislative scheme by imposing a criminal sanction where a disciplinary sanction suffices. The risk of the conviction persisting includes continued incarceration, a criminal record, and the chilling effect on police personnel performing medically advised duties. By securing a quashing order, the counsel not only protects the constable’s liberty but also clarifies the statutory boundaries, preventing future misuse of the Essential Services Act against police officers.

Question: What strategic considerations should guide the filing of a stay of execution and bail application while the revision is pending, and what role does the lawyer in Chandigarh High Court play in securing liberty?

Answer: When a revision petition is filed, the conviction remains operative until the High Court decides on its merits, exposing the constable to continued custodial consequences. The immediate strategic priority is to obtain a stay of execution of the sentence, which can be sought on the ground that the revision raises a substantial question of law concerning the validity of the complaint and the applicability of the Essential Services Act. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court, familiar with the procedural nuances of bail and stay applications, can draft a petition emphasizing that the constable is already in custody, that the alleged offence is under dispute, and that the medical evidence shows a reasonable excuse, thereby satisfying the criteria for bail. The counsel should also highlight that the conviction may be ultra vires, and that the High Court’s power under the inherent jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice warrants a stay. In addition, the bail application must address the risk of flight, which is minimal given the constable’s service record and the fact that he remains employed by the police department. The lawyer should attach the medical certificate, the re‑assignment order, and affidavits from senior officers confirming the constable’s compliance with directives. By presenting a comprehensive factual matrix, the counsel can persuade the court that the constable does not pose a danger to the public or the investigation. Securing a stay not only preserves the constable’s liberty during the pendency of the revision but also prevents the execution of a potentially unlawful sentence, thereby safeguarding his rights pending a definitive High Court ruling.

Question: How should the revision petition be framed to compel the High Court to examine the authorisation requirement of the complaint, and what evidentiary documents must be annexed to support that argument?

Answer: The revision petition must be crafted as a focused legal document that isolates the two pivotal questions: whether the written complaint satisfied the statutory authorisation requirement and whether the Essential Services Act applies to a police constable whose duty was cancelled on medical grounds. The petition should open with a concise statement of facts, emphasizing the medical certificate, the duty officer’s re‑assignment order, and the rank of the officer who lodged the FIR. It must then articulate that the authorising notification limits complaint‑making to officers of a higher grade, a condition not met in the present case. To substantiate this claim, the petition should annex the original notification, the FIR copy, the duty officer’s written order re‑assigning the constable, the medical certificate, and the log‑book entries showing the constable’s presence in the records room. Additionally, affidavits from senior officers confirming the chain of command and the procedural steps taken can reinforce the argument. The petition should request that the High Court examine the statutory construction of the authorisation clause, invoking its inherent power to quash proceedings that commence on an invalid complaint. By presenting the documentary trail in a chronological annex, the lawyer in Chandigarh High Court can demonstrate that the complaint was procedurally defective, thereby rendering the conviction unsustainable. The petition should also seek a declaration that the Essential Services Act does not extend to the constable’s situation, citing the cancellation of duty as a factual barrier to the “absence from work” element. This dual approach ensures that the High Court is compelled to address both the procedural defect and the substantive applicability, maximizing the chances of a quashing order.