IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the validity of disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of removal from service for unauthorized absence, emphasizing adherence to procedural safeguards and the appellant's failure to substantiate claims of mental illness.

JUDGMENT :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

Heard Mr. Bimal Chetri, learned counsel, assisted Ms. Doli Bora, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. U. K.Goswami, learned CGC, appearing on behalf of all the respondents.

2. The appellant, herein, by way of instituting the present intra-Court appeal, has presented a challenge to a judgment & order, dated 21.11.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)3747/2011.

3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed as under:

The appellant, herein, while serving as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Haridwar, was issued with a memorandum of charge, dated 01.11.2016, levelling 2(two) charges against him.

The article of charge No. 1 so levelled against the appellant, herein, pertains to his unauthorized absence from duty w.e.f. 05.07.2016.

The article of charge No. 2 as framed against the appellant, herein, alleges that the appellant who was awarded 6(six) minor punishments under Rule 37 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules , 2001, and 2(two) major punishments under Rule 36 of the Rules of 2001, for his various negligence, indiscipline and misconduct, had not reformed himself and had continued to commit negligence towards his duty and indiscipline.

The appellant, herein, on receipt of the said memorandum of charge, dated 01.11.2016, submitted his written statement of defence, thereto, on 03.12.2016. In his written statement of defence, the appellant had contended that the reason for his absence without leave(AWL), was on account of his family problems. The appellant also undertook that he will never act in such a manner in future and will do his duties. Accordingly, the appellant prayed that the proceedings so initiated against him, be dropped. The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the written statement of defence as submitted by the appellant, herein, in the matter; directed for holding of a departmental inquiry with regard to the charges so levelled against the appellant, herein.

In the inquiry so conducted by the Inquiry Officer, several departmental witnesses were examined. The appellant, however, did not adduce any evidence in his defence in the said departmental inquiry.

The Inquiry Officer, upon conclusion of the inquiry so conducted in the matter; submitted his report on 26.12.2016, by holding both the charges so levelled against the appellant, herein, to be proved.

The Inquiry Report was forwarded to the appellant, herein, by his disciplinary authority, vide a communication, dated 03.01.2017. The appellant submitted his representation against the Inquiry Report, on 21.01.2017, and therein, reiterated that he was required to remain absent from his duties without leave w.e.f. 05.07.2016, till 23.11.2016, on account of certain family problems.

The disciplinary authority of the appellant, herein, on considering the Inquiry Report; the materials coming on record in the inquiry; as well as the representation submitted by the appellant, herein; agreed with the findings and conclusions reached by the Inquiry Officer in the matter.

The disciplinary authority, thereafter, by holding that the appellant, herein, had demonstrated gross negligence, indiscipline and disobedience to the orders of his superiors as well as his careless attitude towards his duties tarnishing the image of the Force, proceeded vide order, dated 31.01.2017, to conclude that the charges proved against the appellant, being very serious in nature and he having not improved his conduct inspite of penalties being imposed upon him, earlier; imposed upon the appellant, the penalty of “Removal from service”.

The appellant, herein, being aggrieved with the imposition of the penalty as imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority vide order, dated 31.01.2017, pr