In disciplinary proceedings, while prolonged unauthorized absence in a uniformed force constitutes serious misconduct, the penalty of dismissal is subject to judicial review for proportionality. Punishment is invalid if the authority ignores mitigating circumstances or fails to distinguish between wilful desertion and absence due to unavoidable personal emergencies.

Judgment :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. The petitioner asserted that he entered service in the year 1992 as a Constable bearing No.913162245 under the 87 BN Commandant, Central Reserve Police Force at Mathura in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner portrayed his initial tenure in service marked by sincerity, efficiency, honesty, diligence and disciplined conduct contending that from the date of his appointment till June 1995 there existed no allegation or adverse remark against him from any quarter whatsoever.

2. It had been pleaded that the petitioner, during the period commencing from 10th July, 1995 and continuing till 26th July, 1995 had availed Casual Leave for 15 days on account of the marriage ceremony of his sister. According to the petitioner although such leave had been duly sanctioned, he was ultimately unable to rejoin his duties within the stipulated period. The petitioner further stated that he faced with compelling personal circumstances; he had thereafter addressed two telegrams to the Company Commander, D-87 BN CRPF, SKJ Bhumi, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, requesting extension of the leave period but in vain. It was specifically alleged notwithstanding such communications seeking indulgence from the authority concerned, no extension of leave was granted in his favour.

3. Elaborating the circumstances which allegedly prevented his return to duty, the petitioner stated that he was required to resume duty on 26.07.1995 but could not report owing to a grave domestic exigency. It had been averred that his wife namely Chabi Bagdi had suffered fracture of tibia and had been medically advised to complete bed-rest. The petitioner asserted that he had been the sole adult member in the family at the relevant point of time to attend not only to his ailing wife but also to his minor children and aged parents. In such circumstances, according to the petitioner, had became impossible for him to leave his family unattended or arranged any viable alternative so as to immediately rejoin service.

4. The petitioner further contended, despite repeated requests and representations explaining the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent no.2 proceeded to lodge a complaint against him under Section 10(M) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 against the petitioner on 02nd December, 1995 allegedly without affording him any concrete opportunity of hearing. The narrative of the petitioner further revealed that on 17th June, 1996 a show-cause notice was issued against him in connection with his prolonged absence from duty. The notice disclosed that a departmental enquiry had already been conducted by one Rakesh Kumar, Assistant Commandant and charge was framed under Article I and Article II had been found proved. The petitioner was thereby called upon to show cause within 15 days as to why punishment should not be imposed upon him pursuant to the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings.

5. The petitioner further asserted upon receipt of the show-cause notice, he furnished a reply reiterating that his leave for the period from 10th July, 1995 to 26th July, 1995 had been sanctioned and that his inability to report to duty on the due date arose solely on account of t