The High Court cannot interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority in a departmental enquiry unless there is a discrepancy in holding the enquiry or the punishment imposed is excessive and disproportionate to the misconduct alleged.

JUDGMENT :

1. The State respondents-appellants have preferred this intra court appeal against the judgment and order dated 02.03.2021 passed by Writ Court allowing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1206/2010, C.T. Sajjan Singh vs. Union of India and Others.

2. The petitioner-respondent was a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force and was working as Black Commando on deputation with the National Security Guards (NSG). He absented himself from 27.04.2006 to 09.06.2006, 14.06.2006 to 25.06.2006, 14.07.2006 to 01.08.2006 and from 3.08.2006 to 16.11.2006 without prior information and sanction of any leave. He was chargesheeted and upon enquiry was ordered to be removed from service vide order dated 18.09.2007. The said order was confirmed in departmental appeal and the revision against the appellate order was also dismissed.

3. The petitioner-respondent thereafter invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court challenging the order of his removal, the appellate order and the revisional order.

4. The writ petition has been allowed by the impugned order observing that the petitioner-respondent had absented himself for a short span and that he had lost his son due to which his wife was suffering from depression. Thus, the Court considers it appropriate to set aside the order of removal more particularly when there is nothing on record to suggest that he had no leave to his credit and that instead of punishment of removal, the authorities could have passed a minor punishment. Accordingly, directions were issued to the authorities to pass a fresh order of punishment rather than removal and dismissal from service and to treat him as reinstated with all consequential pay and allowances.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents-appellants has assailed the above judgment and order on the ground that the Writ Court could not have issued the aforesaid directions without setting aside any of the orders under challenge or the order of removal passed against the petitioner-respondent. The Court has not recorded any finding that the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner-respondent was flawed in any manner or that the punishment of removal imposed upon him is excessive and disproportionate to the misconduct alleged to have been committed by him.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent has defended the impugned order by contending that the petitioner-respondent is a very good Officer with excellent performance and that absence of small period is not so serious enough to impose the major punishment of removal. The petitioner-respondent has absented himself only during the year 2006 and that too, on account of the death of his only son and the mental condition of his wife. In the above circumstances, the petitioner-respondent could not have been inflicted with such a grave punishment of removal from service and that some minor punishment would have suffice the purpose.

7. The record reveals that the petitioner-respondent had remained absent from duty for the period mentioned above. The absence in duty is initially for a period of about six weeks and then twice for two week and finally for three months. The aforesaid absence from duty indicates that he is habitual offender and had remained absent from duties at least for the 4 times in the year, 2006. On account of the unauthorized absence of the duty without leave and prior information, a departmental enquiry was conducted against him and that the petitioner in writing submitted that he has no explanation to furnish and he admits for staying on leave without permission. In the circumstances, the misconduct against him stood proved. This apart, the Writ Court has not pointed out any lacuna or flaw in holding the said enquiry and submitting a report holding him to be guilty.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent has also not been able to demonstrate any discrepancy in the enquiry so conducted. His only thrust of the argument is that it was on account of the death of his onl