IMPORTANT POINT
Dismissal should only be imposed for willful and intentional absence, and the punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 9.10.2018, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing the appellate order dated 18.1.2019 as well as revisional order dated 9.5.2019 confirming the dismissal order. Further prayer has been made for reinstatement of service with all consequential benefits.

3. As per the factual matrix, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lady Constable in the year 2008 in Central Industrial Security Force. While the petitioner was posted at 2nd Reserved Battalion, Ranchi, she was proceeded for casual leave from 12.3.2018 to 18.3.2018. Though, she was supposed to join the duty on 19.3.2018, but she did not join despite issuance of three notices on 22.3.2018, 31.3.2018 and 6.4.2018 at the address of her native place. This unauthorized overstayal of the petitioner led to issuance of memo of charge under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001 on 17.5.2018. Two charges were levelled against her, which includes the current unauthorized absenteeism as well as past misconduct for overstayal leave, in which, minor punishments were inflicted. Being duty bound, the petitioner submitted her reply denying the charges levelled against her with supportive documents. She explained that overstayal is neither willful nor deliberate, rather, it was due to compelling circumstances. Further case of the petitioner that due to medical problem of her son, as he was suffering from epilepsy, as also due to ailments of her mother, she could not join duty on time. It was also stated in the reply that on earlier occasions while she was posted at different places, she was made victim of sexual harassment by the superior authorities and due to those disputes, several cases are pending in the Court and the petitioner has to attend the Court periodically. It was further stated in the reply that the petitioner has been embroiled in a divorce case with her husband, which is going on at Hazaribagh Court, wherein also the petitioner has to attend the case time to time. These facts have already been informed by the mother of petitioner to the authority concerned. However, having found the reply of the petitioner unsatisfactory, the enquiry started and finally the enquiry officer submitted the report holding the charges to be proved. Agreeing with the findings returned by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority issued second show cause notice on 19.9.2018 to which the petitioner replied on 9.10.2018 stating therein that the enquiry report is not in consonance with her reply, though it has come in the enquiry report itself that the mother of the petitioner has already informed the Authority about these compelling situations. However, the petitioner was inflicted with capital punishment by dismissing her from service by order dated 9.10.2018. The appeal preferred thereagainst was also rejected by the appellate authority by order dated 18.1.2019. Thereafter the petitioner preferred revision, which also got rejected by the revisonal authority vide order dated 9.5.2019. Challenging these three impugned orders, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority is neither sustainable in law nor on facts for the reason that the disciplinary authority has passed the order without taking into account the medical reports and without considering the compelling situations of the petitioner, as narrated in her reply, though it has been mentioned in the enquiry report itself that the same is well within the knowledge of the authority.

Learned counsel further submits that once the medical certificates have been brought to the knowledge of the respondents and without giving a finding it cann