The main legal point established in the judgment is the justification of dismissal for grave misconduct, insubordination, and indiscipline due to unauthorized absence from duty for over two years, despite being declared fit by the Medical Board. The court emphasized the need for strict adherence to rules in a disciplined force like the police.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

CM APPL. 14056/2017 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to just exception.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 3238/2017

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated December 6, 2016 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal', for short) in the Original Application being O.A. No. 3464 of 2016, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA.

2. The factual matrix of the present petition is that the petitioner, who was serving as a Constable in Delhi Police, posted in the Special Staff was transferred to Distt. Lines X- Ray vide office order dated October 20, 2006 and further on October 24, 2006, based on an oral order, the petitioner was transferred to P.S. Bawana.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the two orders created confusion and tension for the petitioner, as in the absence of a written order, he could not report for duty at PS Bawana. Thus, he suffered from irregular blood pressure and fell sick. Thereafter, he availed treatment in Government Hospitals and sent the medical documents to his superior authorities. Furthermore, he was subjected to a second Medical Board at Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, in which the medical authorities viewed that on the day of examination his blood pressure was under control and that he was fit to resume/join duties.

4. Thereafter, the respondents initiated a Departmental Enquiry (`D.E', for short) against the petitioner. The petitioner was dismissed from service after the Disciplinary Authority (`DA', for short) and the Appellate Authority (`AA', for short) held that the petitioner is unfit to be in the police force and has committed misconduct, indiscipline, disobedience and insubordination.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in the above said O.A, which was dismissed. The petitioner filed a Review Application against the said order which was allowed and the OA was listed for rehearing. In the said Review Application, the Tribunal referring to the judgment in Bhagwan Lal Arya v. Commissioner of Police, (2004)4 SCC 560, came to the conclusion that, the issue of proportionality of the punishment imposed had not been gone into, especially, in view of the provisions of Rules 8(a) and 10 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980, and accordingly the O.A. was relisted at its original position for re-hearing on April 07, 2016. Thereafter the Tribunal dismissed the OA on December 6, 2016.

6. Mr. Shivanshu Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the petitioner joined the force as a constable in the year 1990 and has more than 16 years of unblemished service, and that, his work was appreciated and he is a recipient of commendation certificates.

7. He stated, without making any reference to the Rule 16(iii) & (iv) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, the Enquiry Officer (`EO', for short) framed the charges against the petitioner on April 8, 2008. He also stated that, in the report, there are no reasons or finding by the EO for arriving at the conclusion that the charges have been proved against the petitioner.

8. He stated that, the view taken by the DA that if the petitioner was confused due to the oral order, he could have cleared the confusion with his senior officers and should have obtained a prior permission for medical leave, is misplaced. He also stated that the report of ACP/S Puri was not cited in the DE and inquiry was in respect of misconduct of unauthorised absence and insubordination on the part of the petitioner. He also stated that the charge of insubordination was framed because of the impression gathered, that the petitioner has filed a complaint against the ACP/PG Cell to get himself transferred back to the Special Staff.

9. He contended that, on a mere medical examination as directed by the authorities, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner was not ill. No record has been produced during the inquiry with regard to the