IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the punishment imposed should be proportionate to the misconduct, especially in cases involving health issues, and the authority should consider all relevant evidence before making a decision.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in R.C.No. 445517/AP 3(1)/2020, dated 21.08.2020 on the file of the 1st respondent and in C.No.D1/P.R.No.04/2007, dated 01.06.2007 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all service and monetary benefits.)

1. The petitioner herein, while he was working as Grade-II Constable with PC.No.2833 under the control of the 2nd respondent herein, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the ground of desertion from service, as he absented from his duties from 15.01.2007, by issuing a charge memo dated 13.04.2007. In response to the said charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 01.05.2007 stating that he was suffering from mental illness and he is undergoing treatment for the same. However, Respondent No.2 having not been satisfied with the said explanation, appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. But, the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry proceedings and accordingly, the enquiry was held ex-parte and the charges were held to have been proved. Basing on the said enquiry report, though an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner, once again the petitioner did not respond and accordingly, Respondent No.2 passed the order dated 01.06.2007 removing the petitioner from service. Thereafter also, the petitioner did not take any further steps and finally it is only in the year 2020, the petitioner submitted a mercy petition before Respondent No.1 contending that he has been undergoing treatment for mental illness from the year 2006 till the year 2020 and by producing a certificate issued by the Psychologist dated 06.03.2020, requested for considering his case on sympathetical grounds and requested for reinstatement into service. The petitioner also raised a ground of disproportionality of the punishment to the alleged charges framed against him. The said mercy petition of the petitioner was rejected by Respondent No.1 by passing an order in proceedings in Rc.No.445517/AP 3(1)/2020, dated 21.08.2020 on the ground that the petitioner failed to place any material in support of his contention about the medical treatment. Aggrieved by the said order as well as the original order of removal from service, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

2. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner also filed the entire medical record commencing from 15.07.2006 till 22.02.2020 along with certain other materials relating to the medical treatment undergone by him. Perusal of the said material, especially Page Nos.1 to 28, that is the medical case sheet of the petitioner, prima facie shows that the petitioner had undergone treatment for mental illness till February 2020. As the petitioner was undergoing treatment for mental illness and depression from Psychologist, this Court is of the view that the same may be the reason for the petitioner in not participating during the oral enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer and also in not responding to the show cause notice issued by Respondent No.2 before issuing the removal order dated 01.06.2007. However, for the reasons best known, the petitioner appears to have not placed the entire material before the 1st respondent while submitting his mercy petition in the year 2020.

3. Similar issue has come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Bhagwan Lalarya v. Commissioner of Police reported in (2004) 4 SCC 560 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at Paragraph Nos.11 and 14, observed as under:

“11. The order dated 16-1-1995 passed by the respondents was produced by the respondents themselves in their reply to CWP before the High Court of Delhi that they had sanctioned leave without pay for the period from 7-10-1994 to 15-12-1994,