The absence from duty without application or permission may not always amount to unauthorized absence, especially in the context of compelling circumstances such as illness or quarantine due to COVID-19.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated May 10, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter, referred to as the `Tribunal') in O.A. No.259/2022, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

"A. Quash and set aside impugned orders dated 01/09/2021, 29/05/2020 and 19/05/2020;

B. Direct the Respondents to treat the intervening period between 21/04/2020 and 14/10/2020 as period spent on duty, and award all consequential benefits thereto;

C. Direct the respondents to pay the deducted salary for the period between 21/04/2020 and 14/10/2020;

D. In the alternative to prayer B & C, direct the respondents to treat the period between 21/04/2020 and 14/10/2020 against accumulated earned leave for the year 2020 and pay the deducted salary for the period between 21/04/2020 and 14/10/2020; and

E. Award cost of the proceedings."

2. In brief, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 vide office order dated November 11, 2020 for unauthorizedly absenting for a period of about 05 months 22 days, without any prior intimation/permission of the competent authority, in contravention of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 as well as SO No.111 issued by Delhi Police.

3. As per the case of the respondents, while the petitioner was posted at Police Station: Mandir Marg, New Delhi, he was detailed for duty from 08:00 PM on April 21, 2020. Also, due to spread of COVID-19, the police personnel had been directed to report for duty and not to leave the District Headquarters. However, petitioner neither reported for duty, nor forwarded any intimation about his whereabouts. In view of above, petitioner was marked absent vide DD No.45-B dated April 21, 2020, Police Station: Mandir Marg, New Delhi District. Petitioner, thereafter, resumed his duties as recorded vide DD No.64 dated October 14, 2020 after absenting for a period of 05 months and 22 days. Consequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner.

4. Petitioner claimed that he officially availed rest period for three days with due intimation to the respondents from April 18, 2020. Further, he visited his native place Alwar, Rajasthan but upon arrival therein, he was put under quarantine for a period of 28 days due to COVID-19, which was informed to the superiors telephonically as well as through WhatsApp. However, he was marked absent and served with a show-cause notice dated May 01, 2020 through WhatsApp and his leave period was considered as unauthorized.

5. The charge against the petitioner was held to be proved by the Inquiry Officer. In the written representation, in response to the findings of Inquiry Officer, petitioner also submitted that he remained under treatment of Dr. Devendra Dev, Govt. Hospital Trauma Centre, Behror, Rajasthan from May 17, 2020 and had submitted an application dated October 14, 2020 along with medical certificates for grant of commuted leave. Further, only at the time of resuming duties, he became aware that information regarding claiming medical rest w.e.f. May 17, 2020 had not been recorded in Daily Diary by Chitta Munshi as well as Duty Officer.

6. Disciplinary Authority/DCP, New Delhi District agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, awarded punishment of forfeiture of one year approved service entailing proportionate reduction in his pay vide order dated May 28, 2021. Further, the period of absence under inquiry was treated as `Not spent on Duty' for all intents and purposes and was not regularized in any manner.

7. An appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was dismissed vide order dated September 01, 2021 by the Appellate Authority i.e. Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range, New Delhi.

8. Petitioner, thereafter challenged the orders passed by the respondents vide O.A. No.259/2022.

The same was dismissed by the