JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 13.02.2017, passed by the Revisional Authority (respondent No. 2), affirming the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority, by which the salary of the petitioner has been reduced by one increment for one year with further direction that he will not earn increment of pay during this period of one year and that on expiry of this period, the reduction in pay will have the effect of postponing his future increment.

Petitioner has further prayed that after quashment of the above orders, the respondents may be directed to pay all consequential benefits along with interest.

3. As per the factual matrix, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable on 14.01.2013 at Central Industrial Security Force (for short ‘CISF’) Unit, Kargali. Thereafter, the petitioner has worked to the full satisfaction of the respondents and not a single adverse remark has ever been made against him, save and except the present one. It is the case of the petitioner that he applied for leave for 3 days which was duly sanctioned by the competent authority and the petitioner was required to report at Unit by 08.04.2016. However, the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent No. 4 on 06.04.2016 praying therein for extension of leave for another 30 days, since he was ill and not fit to join his duties. However, vide letter dated 11.04.2016, request of leave was rejected and the same was received by the petitioner on 25.04.2016. Petitioner again sent an application for extension of time on 04.05.2016, as the health of the petitioner was also not good but the said request was rejected vide order dated 11.05.2016.

It is the further case of the petitioner that on 20.05.2016, a chargesheet was issued against the petitioner alleging that he has overstayed the sanctioned leave, which amounts to misconduct, dereliction of duty and the petitioner was asked to file reply to show-cause within 10 days. Thereafter, the petitioner reported for duty on 07.06.2016 and on 08.06.2016, chargesheet was served upon him. Upon receipt of the said show-cause, the petitioner replied to the same, denying the allegations leveled him. However, the respondents without considering his reply initiated departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted its report on 21.07.2016, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The petitioner was asked to file reply within 15 days in contemplation of final order. It is the specific case of the petitioner that during the enquiry, petitioner submitted his reply annexing the medical documents and explaining the reasons for overstay, but the same was not considered and without any evidence against the petitioner, enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges. Thereafter, on 19.08.2016, the disciplinary authority passed the order inflicting major punishment against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 3 which also stood rejected vide order dated 22.10.2016. The petitioner also preferred revision before the respondent No. 2 on 04.11.2016 but the same was also rejected vide order dated 13.02.2017.

Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

4. Mr. Rishikesh Giri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of punishment is totally disproportionate to the charges leveled against him and hence, it is fit to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel submits that the respondents ought to have considered the reasons for absence, i.e. medical unfitness of the petitioner, before inflicting the punishment against him. Learned counsel further submits that the major punishment cannot be passed in case of overstay if there is a justifiable reason and as such, quantum of punishment is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the peti