The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a departmental proceeding, the absence must be proven to be willful, and disproportionate punishment warrants judicial review.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 15.05.2012, whereby the respondent no. 4 has dismissed the petitioner from service.

Further prayer has been made for quashing the appellate order dated 08.04.2013, passed by the respondent No. 3, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against order of dismissal dated 15.05.2015, has been dismissed by the appellate authority.

Petitioner has also prayed that after quashment of the said orders, the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

3. As per the factual matrix, the petitioner was appointed as Police Constable in the State of Jharkhand under the Department of Home. Thereafter, he was posted at several places. It is the case of the petitioner that when he was posted at Dhurwa Police Station, on 16.12.2007, he left office without any intimation and thereafter on 08.01.2008, he was put under suspension and on 15.05.2012, when he did not report at the headquarters, he was dismissed from service in a regular departmental proceeding.

Aggrieved by the dismissal order, petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that order of dismissal is too harsh and disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner remained absent for 22 days as per the charge and it was a case of unauthorized absence. Learned counsel argues that for unauthorized absence of 22 days, dismissal from service was not warranted as the same was under the compelling circumstances which was perhaps not considered by the respondent-authorities while passing the impugned order. Referring to the several medical prescriptions annexed with the writ petition, learned counsel submits that as the petitioner was suffering from various ailments, which is not in dispute, as a result of which he was compelled to stay at home. After recovery, when he came to join his duty, he learnt that the petitioner was put under suspension and thereafter, order of dismissal was passed following the departmental proceeding. Learned counsel further submits that the enquiry officer without considering the genuine cause of absence of the petitioner from duty on the ground of various ailments, has submitted the report to the effect that the absence was willful, which is perverse and arbitrary and the order of dismissal based on the said enquiry report also vitiates. Learned counsel further argues that for the aforesaid facts and reasons, the impugned orders are fit to be quashed and set aside and a direction be issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as he is just 45 years old and 15 years of service is still left and he is able to discharge the duties assigned to him by the Home Department.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel places heavy reliance on the following judgments:

(I) Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors., (2004) 4 SCC 560;

(II) Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri, (2009) 15 SCC 620; &

(III) Union of India & Anr. v. R.K. Sharma [Civil Appeal No. 4059 of 2015, disposed of on 30.06.2022].

6. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was a member of police force and in the police force absolute discipline is required to be maintained. Learned counsel submits that Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in Police Force even in case of unauthorized absence for one day, the dismissal from service is justified. Learned counsel submits that petitioner being member of disciplined force deserted the office without any intimation and information. Even in the departmental proceeding he failed to appear. Learned counsel submits that when he was asked to get himself treated in RIMS, he left the hospit