Unauthorized absence does not automatically equate to willful misconduct. In disciplinary matters, a finding of 'willful' conduct is essential to justify severe penalties. Where such a finding is absent and the punishment is disproportionate to long service, courts may exercise discretion to modify the penalty directly.

JUDGMENT :

MUNNURI LAXMAN, J.

1) The present writ petition challenges the enquiry report dated 12.09.2019 and the order of removal dated 26.12.2019 passed by the second respondent, Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, as well as the appellate order dated 30.06.2020 passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Railway Protection Force, Jabalpur.

2) The brief facts leading to the present proceedings are that the petitioner was working as a Female Constable at Kota and was permanently confirmed to the post on 28.07.2006. While she was serving under the Prosecution Office of the Railway Protection Force at Kota, the respondent authorities transferred her on 27.11.2018 to Sawai Madhopur on the ground of administrative exigency, and she was relieved from her existing position by proceedings dated 16.12.2018. The petitioner was on privilege leave on medical grounds, though without a sick certificate as required, until 25.11.2018, whereas the transfer order was issued on 27.11.2018. Thereafter, multiple communications were issued by the competent authority directing the petitioner to join her post at Sawai Madhopur. The petitioner, through the letter dated 10.12.2018, informed the Senior Divisional Commissioner, RPF, Kota about her medical condition and requested an extension of leave. On 12.12.2018, the petitioner’s mother also submitted a communication informing the authorities about the petitioner’s medical condition and her inability to attend duty. Despite this, the respondents continued to issue communications directing her to join at Sawai Madhopur.

3) The disciplinary proceedings were initiated on three counts. The first charge relates to disobedience of the transfer order dated 27.11.2018, inasmuch as the petitioner failed to join her post at Sawai Madhopur. The second charge relates to continuous absence from duty without following the prescribed procedure and to her failure to respond to the various communications issued by the respondents. The third charge is relating to non-compliance of the procedure to avail medical leave. The charge sheet was duly served in accordance with the prescribed procedure, calling upon the petitioner to submit her explanation. As no explanation was received, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer issued notice to the petitioner commencing the enquiry; however, the petitioner neither responded to the notice nor participated in the enquiry proceedings. Consequently, the enquiry was conducted ex parte. During the enquiry, the department examined two witnesses and relied upon various documents. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Enquiry Officer found all three charges proved. The initial Disciplinary Authority communicated the enquiry report to the petitioner and sought her response. Upon receiving her reply, the initial Disciplinary Authority found that he was not authorised to impose the penalty of removal and, therefore, he referred the matter to the second respondent, who, by the impugned order, imposed the penalty of removal from service. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order of removal passed by the Disciplinary Authority, and her appeal was also dismissed, concurring with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

4) Heard both the sides.

5) The principal contention of th