Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 430
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ, Deepak Roshan, J.
Union of India Represented through Suman Kant Tigga - Appellant
Versus
Jagannath Pattanaik S/o Late Ramakanta Pattanaik - Respondent
L.P.A. No. 127 of 2023
Decided On : 18-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants:Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Gaurang Jajodia, Advocate
The court affirmed that removal from service for 274 days of unauthorized absence is justified, emphasizing the higher standards for disciplined forces.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Disciplinary proceedings - The respondent, a Constable in the CRPF, was removed from service for unauthorized absence of 274 days. The learned Single Judge found the punishment harsh and disproportionate, remanding the matter for reconsideration of punishment. The appellate authority's dismissal of the appeal was upheld. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12)
(B) Proportionality of Punishment - The court emphasized that the standard for members of a disciplined force is higher, and unauthorized absence for 274 days justifies removal from service. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was absent without authorization for 274 days over three periods, admitted his absence, and sought forgiveness. He claimed mental unsoundness but provided no supporting evidence.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge's conclusion that the punishment was disproportionate lacked reasoning, and the court found the removal from service justified given the circumstances.
Issues: The main issues were whether the punishment was commensurate with the misconduct and the adequacy of reasoning in the learned Single Judge's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the punishment of removal from service was not harsh or shockingly disproportionate given the respondent's long unauthorized absence.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDEMENT :
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment dt. 15.12.2022 in W.P.(S) No. 4737 of 2018 of the learned Single Judge.
3. The respondent was employed as a Constable in the CRPF. A disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him on 14.05.2011 for unauthorized absence of 274 days in three blocks i.e. from 16.06.2010 to 20.06.2010 (4 days), 20.10.2010 to 26.05.2011 (219 days) and 27.05.2011 to 16.07.2011 (51 days).
4. The respondent participated in the disciplinary enquiry conducted against him and admitted his unauthorised absence and sought forgiveness. The disciplinary authority imposed punishment on 24.10.2011 of removal of service of the respondent.
5. Challenging the same he filed an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General, CoBRA, by taking a plea that his family condition as well as mental condition was not sound and he was enmeshed due to misunderstanding. In the proceeding before the appellate authority also he did not produce any material in support of his health condition.
6. The appellate authority therefore, dismissed the appeal on 18.03.2013.
7. Thereafter, the respondent filed W.P.(S) No. 4737 of 2018 after five years and contended in the Writ Petition that the punishment imposed on him is harsh and is not commensurate with the proved misconduct. He filed certain documents in support of his plea that he was mentally unsound at the time of absence.
8. The appellants contended in the Writ Petition that the respondent was unauthorisedly absent and he was also checked in a medical hospital but no health infirmity was found and the plea taken by the respondent that he was medically unfit is not correct and he had brought certain documents in the Writ Petition only to save his skin.
9. The Learned Single Judge considered the rival submissions of the parties and discussed the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others Vs. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612 and also judgment in Chairman-cum- Managing Director Coal India Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and Ors. (2009) 15 SCC 620 and held that one of the grounds of interference by a Writ Court against the punishment imposed is the proportionality of the punishment and that if the punishment was not commensurate with the proved misconduct and is shockingly disproportionate, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can interfere with the quantum of punishment.
Thereafter, the learned Single Judge observed that though the respondent was unauthorisedly absent for 274 days in three blocks, punishment of removal from service imposed on respondent is harsh and shockingly disproportionate and that there were other punishments also available which could have been imposed on the respondent.
10. He therefore, interfered with the quantum of punishment and set aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority imposing punishment of removal from service and remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order on the quantum of punishment.
11. In the order passed by the learned Single Judge there is no reasoning in support of his conclusion that the punishment of removal from service is harsh and shockingly disproportionate in regard to the respondent who was unauthorisedly absent for 274 days in three blocks. Admittedly, the respondent was a member of a disciplined force and the standard applicable to such employees is far higher than what would apply to the persons discharging other duties in the State, Central Government or in the instrumentalities of the State.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the unauthorised absence for 274 days by the respondent does not warrant imposition of punishment of removal from service and in our opinion, it cannot be said that the said punishment is harsh and shockingly
