JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders passed by departmental authorities whereby he was awarded punishment of forfeiture of two increments with permanent effect.

2. The petitioner joined Police Force as Constable on 30.11.1989. The respondent initiated departmental inquiry against him alleging that he remained absent from duty for 128 days. The inquiry officer found him guilty of alleged misconduct and disciplinary authority vide order dated 17.04.2009 awarded him punishment of forfeiture of two increments with permanent effect. He preferred appeal and Appellate Authority vide order dated 05.08.2009 rejected his appeal. He preferred revision which came to be rejected vide order dated 12.06.2014.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had 20 years service to his credit still was punished with forfeiture of increments on the ground of absence from duty. The punishment awarded was harsh. The Inquiry Officer did not appreciate evidence in true spirit and held him guilty. The higher authorities have passed impugned orders without application of mind. He was medically unfit, thus, could not join office. Absence from duty was beyond his control. The punishment awarded is disproportionate to alleged misconduct.

4. Learned State Counsel reiterated contents of impugned orders and submitted that no interference is warranted because there is no infirmity in the impugned orders.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. From the perusal of impugned order, it is evident that petitioner remained absent from duty without informing the department. He did not report at the transferred place within time. Relevant extracts of impugned order are reproduced as below:-

“As per the order of SSP, Jalandhar the departmental enquiry against HC/LR Kewal Krishan 1653/Jalandhar was received to be completed and there was a charge against him that as per the order of D.I.G., Range, Jalandhar, due to his transfer from District Nawanshehar District (Temporary attachment) he was relieved and departed from District Jalandhar to District Nawanshehar on 27.11.07 but HC/LR Kewal Krishan at District did not submit his joining report Nawanshehar within stipulated period of time, due to which his transfer order were cancelled and HC Kewal Krishan after remaining absent from duty for about 128 days 20 hous and 35 minutes reported back at Police Line on 4.4.08. I have scrutinized the documents attached in the departmental enquiry file, original orders, summary of charge, statement of witnesses, complaint, charge-sheet and written reply filed by the delinquent and the medical certificates, very carefully and after careful perusal of the same I have arrived at this conclusion that the charges leveled in the charge-sheet against the delinquent for remaining absent from duty for about 128 days, 20 hours and 30 minutes are clearly proved.”

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ex Sepoy Madan Prasad v. Union of India and others, (2023) 9 SCC 100 while adverting to disciplinary action in case of absence from duty has held that the Court should not set aside order of dismissal where delinquent is part of Armed Forces and remained absent from duty. The relevant extracts of the judgment read as: -

"11. It is apparent from the above table that the appellant was a habitual offender. There were four red ink entries and one black ink entry against him before the present incident cited at Serial No. (f) above. Such gross indiscipline on the part of the appellant who was a member of the Armed Forces could not be countenanced. He remained out of line far too often for seeking condonation of his absence of leave, this time, for a prolonged period of 108 days which if accepted, would have sent a wrong signal to others in service. One must be mindful of the fact that discipline is the implicit hallmark of the Armed Forces and a non-negotiable condition of se