The central legal point established in the judgment is that 'wilful overstaying' does not include situations where a person was forced to overstay due to health hazards, and that excessive punishment, shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct, can be a condition for interference with the quantum of punishment.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. Petitioner has challenged the Memo No. 1455 dated 3.6.2016 by which after conclusion of the departmental proceeding the petitioner was punished with withholding of six months increments from the salary which would not have any effect in the future increment and further salary for the period which he was absent will be treated as “no work no pay” and the same will be adjusted against his leave.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner took leave for marriage of his daughter, but thereafter overstayed for 27 days as he was suffering from Jaundice and other liver ailments. He submits that on the ground that he overstayed, he was punished vide Order No. 1683 dated 11.6.2015. The said punishment was only of censor and of “no work no pay” for the period of absence. It is his contention that the said punishment was inflicted without following the due procedure of law, thus the authorities set aside the said findings and directed for a fresh inquiry. Fresh inquiry was conducted and after submission of the report, the petitioner was punished by the impugned order dated 3.6.2016 contained in Memo No. 1455. It is his contention that the quantum of punishment has been increased and there is no finding of the authority that the petitioner had wilfully overstayed. He submits that even the inquiry officer has not doubted the version of the defence that the petitioner was suffering from liver aliments and Jaundice. According to him the punishment of withholding of six months increments from the salary is absolutely bad and should be quashed.

4. Standing Counsel –VII submits that the petitioner was proceeded against in terms of Rule 843 of the Police Manual which provides for punishment in case of wilful overstaying during leave or absence from duty without leave. He argues that on the facts of the case the petitioner wilfully overstayed for 27 days beyond the sanctioned period of leave, thus he was proceeded against in terms of Rule 843 Police Manual and punishment of stoppage of increments was imposed.

According to him the earlier punishment order dated 11.6.2015 has got no relevance as the same was passed without following the due process of law. It is his contention that the quantum of punishment is the sole prerogative of the employer which should not interfered with by this Court in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by way of judicial review.

5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find that the facts are admitted. The petitioner’s daughter was to be married for which petitioner was granted leave. He was supposed to join on 22.3.2015 but he overstayed for 27 days and joined on 17.4.2015. Due to the overstay the petitioner was punished vide order dated 11.6.2015 as contained in Memo No. 1683. The said punishment was of censor and of “no work no pay” for the period of absence. As proper procedure was not followed before inflicting the aforesaid punishment, the punishment order was set aside and decision was taken to initiate a fresh departmental proceeding. A departmental proceeding was initiated and the inquiry report was furnished. After perusing the inquiry report, vide impugned order dated 3.6.2016 punishment of stoppage of increments for six months was imposed. Further it was held that period which he overstayed would be treated as “no work no pay” and will be adjusted from the leave available to the petitioner.

6. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner was proceeded against in terms of Rule 843 of the Police Manual. Rule 843 provides for initiating a proceeding against the person who wilfully overstayed after leave or remains absent from duty without leave. It is an admitted case that the case of the petitioner falls within the category of wilful overstaying during leave, as leave was already granted to the petitioner but he overstayed. The petitioner had explained the reasons for overstaying, which is