Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12169
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member, Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
Shah Din – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K – Respondent
Transferred Application No. 61/5780/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Mohd. Latif Malik
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Thapa
An administrative tribunal will not interfere with disciplinary removal orders where the petitioner has a documented history of habitual absenteeism, the challenge is barred by significant laches, and the disciplinary proceedings adhered to the principles of natural justice and proportionality.
Headnote:(A) Police Rules - Rules 369 and 375 - Removal from service - Unauthorized absence - Habitual absenteeism - Petitioner challenged removal order after seven years - Medical certificate produced found to be suspicious as it was issued prospectively - Disciplinary authority has discretion to impose higher penalty than recommended by enquiry officer, especially where record shows repeated misconduct - Dismissal of appeals for non-compliance with procedural formalities and statutory timelines upheld. (Paras 31, 35, 41-43)
(B) Writ jurisdiction - Delay and laches - Challenge to disciplinary action filed after long delay - Mere pendency of administrative remedies does not condone unexplained laches in approaching court - Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for stale claims. (Paras 29-30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a police constable, was removed from service following an unauthorized absence of 115 days. He claimed medical reasons, specifically psychiatric issues and family tragedy. He filed various appeals and a mercy petition over several years, which were rejected on grounds of unauthorized absence, suspicious medical evidence, non-compliance with procedural requirements, and inordinate delay.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the petition was barred by inordinate delay and laches. It found that the petitioner had a history of habitual absenteeism, and the medical certificate provided was inherently suspicious. The disciplinary proceedings were found to be compliant with the principles of natural justice, and the punishment of removal was deemed proportionate to the gravity of frequent disciplinary breaches.
Issues: 1. Whether the removal from service was arbitrary and in violation of natural justice. 2. Whether the petition was maintainable given the inordinate delay in challenging the orders. 3. Whether the medical certificate justified the long unauthorized absence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that disciplinary authorities possess the discretion to enhance penalties based on the overall service record and the gravity of the misconduct. It further held that procedural formalities in statutory appeals are mandatory, and persistent failure to adhere to them, coupled with significant delays in approaching the court, precludes the granting of relief.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background and procedural history of the removal from service. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 2. petitioner's claims versus respondents' justifications for removal. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 3. court's reasoning on laches, habitual misconduct, and validity of proceedings. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
O R D E R
(Per: Shri Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member)
The petitioner had initially filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu, seeking some reliefs. This writ petition was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal and registered here as a Transferred Application for adjudication. The Tribunal now proceeds to consider the matter on the basis of the reliefs originally prayed for by the petitioner before the Hon’ble High Court, as quoted hereinbelow: -
i. To quash the order No. 31 of 2015 dated 04.02.2015 and order No. 293 of 2012 dated 05.06.2015 passed by respondents No. 2 & 3 respectively by issuance of appropriate writ, in the interest the of justice;
ii. To declare the order No. 31 of 2015 dated 04.02.2015 and order No. 293 of 2012 dated the 05.06.2015 passed by respondents No. 2 & 3 as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and against all canons of law by issuance of appropriate writ, in the interest of justice;
iii. To quash the order No. 1866 of 2005 dated 14.11.2005 by the respondent SSP, Jammu being illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice by issuance of appropriate writ in the interest of justice;
iv. To command the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the service and grant all consequential benefits including promotion by issuance of appropriate writ in the interest of justice;
Pass such appropriate, writ, command, direction or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in favour of the petitioner.”
2. The petitioner, Shah Din, was appointed as a Constable bearing No. 3035/J with PID No. EXJ-005470 in the Jammu & Kashmir Police, commencing service on 02.10.2000. Ever since his initial appointment, the petitioner has been known for his disciplined approach to his duties, maintaining the decorum and standards of the Police Department, and performing assignments satisfactorily at various postings. He was considered a law-abiding citizen and a disciplined officer, obeying lawful commands from his superior officers at all material times.
3. Around the end of 2004, the petitioner suddenly developed serious psychiatric issues, resulting in a significant loss of mental control. This health crisis necessitated immediate medical intervention, under which the petitioner was placed for some time. While still under treatment and grappling with the impact of his mental health condition, the petitioner suffered a devastating personal tragedy: in 2005, his unmarried younger brother, Mohd. Yousaf, accidentally passed away. This shocking bereavement compounded the petitioner’s emotional distress, significantly aggravating his depression and mental strain.
4. During this period of illness and family tragedy, the petitioner was compelled to remain absent from duty as he was medically unfit to perform his official responsibilities. His absence spanned a period of 115 days.
5. Despite his prolonged absence, as soon as the petitioner experienced significant recovery from his mental illness especially after the period of acute depression and family loss he voluntarily rejoined his duties. He resumed service on 04.04.2005 and thereafter continued to perform his assigned duties satisfactorily until 14.11.2005.
6. Subsequent to resumption of duty, the petitioner was subjected to a departmental enquiry, which was initiated by the respondents vide Order No. 682 of 2005 dated 06.04.2005. The purpose of the enquiry w
