The court upheld the dismissal of a disciplined force member for unauthorized absence and providing false information, emphasizing the importance of discipline and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters.

Order :

Discipline is the hallmark of the disciplined forces and its member is not expected to violate the discipline by sending incorrect information with regard to his death, more particularly when the delinquent officer is alive and remains unauthorizedly absent from duty.

1. The instant petition has been preferred with the following prayer:

"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be accepted and allowed and order dt-28-8-2000 Annexure-5 awarding the punishment of dismissal from his service upon the petitioner and the order dt- 27-12-2000 Annexure-7 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against his order of dismissal, be quashed and set-aside with all consequential benefits.

Any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 28.08.2000 passed by the respondents by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The appeal preferred against the aforesaid order has also been rejected by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 27.12.2000.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (for short 'CRPF') and he went on leave for 15 days, w.e.f. 04.10.1999 till 22.10.1999. Counsel submits that during the said period, the petitioner met with an accident on 16.10.1999, and he remained under treatment till 19.12.1999, and he became fit on 20.12.1999, and thereafter, he joined the services on 27.12.1999. Counsel submits that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, after serving charge-sheet upon him with the charge of willful absence from duty. Counsel submits that a reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet along with medical certificate of a Medical Officer of Government Primary Health Centre, Sainthal, Dausa, was brought by the petitioner before the authority and it was pleaded before the Disciplinary Authority that on account of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and on account of undergoing treatment, the petitioner could not join the duties after the expiry of the granted leaves. Counsel submits that these facts were overlooked by the respondent authorities and the order impugned was passed.

4. Counsel submits that the petitioner has rendered 15 years of service and looking to the length of his service and looking to the reasons explained by the petitioner regarding his absence, the penalty of dismissal from service is exorbitant and disproportionate, hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

5. In support of his contentions, the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya vs. Commissioner of Police Delhi and Ors. reported in 2004 (2) Supreme 677; and Chhel Singh vs. MGB Gramin Bank, Pali and Others reported in 2014 (13) SCC 166. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made herein above, the orders impugned are liable to be quashed and set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner being a member of a disciplined force remained unauthorizedly absent from duty for a period of 65 days. Counsel submits that when the sanctioned leaves of the petitioner expired, the petitioner was called upon to join the duties but a false information was furnished on behalf of the petitioner that he has passed away. Counsel submits that when this fact was verified, it was found that the petitioner was alive. Counsel submits that no documentary evidence with regard to the injuries suffered by the petitioner in the accident was placed on record, neither any FIR was registered in this regard, nor any information was sent by the petitioner to the respondents, hence, under these circumstances, the plea of the pe