The quantum of punishment imposed on a member of a disciplined force, such as a police constable, for unauthorized absence should be proportionate to the charges established, considering factors such as the impact on the discipline of the force and the rights of colleagues.

JUDGMENT :

Debangsu Basak, J.

1. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated September 20, 2013 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in OA-1693 of 2009.

2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal refused to set aside an order of dismissal of the writ petitioner in a disciplinary proceeding.

3. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, the writ petitioner explained his absence for 138 days for which he was charged with. He draws the attention of the Court to several documents annexed to the writ petition. He submits that, initially, the writ petitioner left his company and battalion on August 16, 2002 on hearing his son’s illness. On reaching home, the writ petitioner involved in a motor accident on August 17, 2002 and was under treatment. He informed the authorities that on September 2, 2002 he fell down in the bathroom and received injury.

4. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, a punishment for dismissal from service on account of unauthorized absence is harsh. He relies upon 2006 (1)CLJ (Cal)386 (Madhusudan Chowdhury vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.), 2013 (4) CHN(Cal) 562 (Barun Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal) and submits that, since unauthorized absence does not involve moral turpitude, a punishment of dismissal cannot be awarded as was held in the two authorities. He relies upon 2012 (2) Supreme 254 (Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India & Anr.) and (2010)2 WBLR (SC) 99 (Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors.) and submits that, a dismissal from service on account of unauthorized absence was harsh and was required to be set aside.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State submits that, the two authorities of the Calcutta High Court proceeded on the basis of consideration of Regulations 856 and 857 of the Bengal Police Regulation, 1943. The petitioner was a constable of Calcutta Police and was governed by the provisions of the Police Regulations of Calcutta, 1968.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State draws the attention of the Court to Regulation 2 Chapter 19, Regulations 1,5,8 and 9(6)(b) of the Regulation of 1968 and submits that, unauthorized absence is considered to be reflecting on the character of the delinquent. Since character of the delinquent is involved, a punishment for dismissal from service in respect of a police force is called for. He submits that, in similar circumstances, a Coordinate Bench while considering a disciplinary proceeding as against a constable of the Calcutta Police upheld a punishment of dismissal from service in (2011)4 CAL LT 570 (HC) (Ratan Dutta vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.). He relies upon (1996)1 Supreme Court Cases 302 (State of U.P. And Others. Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and Another) and (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases 108 (Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others vs. T.T. Murali Babu) and submits that, the quantum of punishment to be imposed should best be left to the disciplinary authority.

7. In the facts of the present case, since the petitioner was a police constable and belonging to a disciplined force, quantum of punishment imposed was appropriate to the charges established. Consequently, according to the learned Senior Advocate for the State, no interference is called for.

8. Petitioner was proceeded against departmentally for unauthorized absence from August 16, 2002 till December 31, 2002, that is, for 138 days. Enquiry proceedings were held where the petitioner was found liable to be proceeded against. Departmental proceedings were initiated where the petitioner was found guilty. In the departmental proceeding apart from his unauthorized absence for the period from August 16, 2002 to December 31, 2002 for 138 days being taken into consideration, his service record was also taken into consideration. It was noted that the petitioner earned three punishments with only one on record. Petitioner was charged with proceeding no