CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No. 371/2019 Reserved on: 13.01.2026 Pronounced on: 16.01.2026 Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)

Shri Rupesh Kumar, S/o Shri Bram Pal Singh, Age 30 years, DOB: 15.06.1988, R/o Village & Post: Jasoi, District: Muzaffarnagar, UP-251301, Ex-Constable (Exe.), Group C, No.4484/Sec.(PIS No. 29100661)

Delhi Police, New Delhi - Applicant (By Advocates: Mr. RV Sinha with Mr. Amit Sinha)

VERSUS

1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi-110002 (Through: the Chief Secretary) 2. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, Police HQ, New Delhi-110 002

3. Joint Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, Security, New Delhi

4. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, Security (HQ), New Delhi - Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Ashish Rai)

ORDER Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

The applicant joined the services of the respondents on

14.06.2010 and, according to him, discharged his duties sincerely and honestly. While posted at Main Lines Security, he fell seriously ill and was advised complete medical rest by the attending doctor of Swami Kalyan Dev Rajkiya Zila Chikitsalaya, Muzaffarnagar, which is a Government District Hospital. Due intimation regarding his illness was given to the concerned duty officer/department. The applicant remained under continuous medical treatment and was ultimately declared medically fit on 08.01.2014, whereafter he rejoined duty and submitted his medical records and fitness certificate.

2. Despite this, the applicant was placed under suspension vide order dated 21.10.2013, which was later revoked on 01.08.2014. Thereafter, a summary of allegations was issued to him alleging willful and unauthorized absence for a period of 125 days, 5 hours and 15 minutes, in violation of Standing Order No. 111 of Delhi Police read with Section 19(5) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972. A departmental enquiry was conducted, and on the basis of the enquiry report dated 20.07.2016, the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal dated 14.09.2016. The appeal filed by the applicant was also rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 01.06.2017.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a citizen of India and is entitled to the protection of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, while the respondents are “State” within the meaning of Article 12 and are duty-bound to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with law. It is contended that the departmental enquiry was conducted in an arbitrary and biased manner, in violation of the prescribed rules and principles of natural justice. The Inquiry Officer did not permit the applicant to effectively avail the assistance of a Defence Assistant, ignored the medical certificates and treatment records, and proceeded mechanically to hold the charges as proved.

4. It is further submitted that the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of dismissal solely on the basis of the enquiry report, without proper application of mind and without considering the medical evidence on record. The appellate authority also rejected the appeal in a mechanical manner, without due consideration of the relevant facts and documents. Learned counsel draws attention to the absentee notice dated 25.09.2013 and the report of the departmental official who visited the applicant’s residence and confirmed that the applicant was ill, which clearly shows that the absence was neither willful nor deliberate.

5. Learned counsel submits that the absence of the applicant was bona fide and on medical grounds, duly informed to the department, and therefore cannot be treated as misconduct. The penalty of dismissal is stated to be grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and imposed in disregard of the material on record and the principles of proportionality. It is also submitted that the applicant could not approach the Tribunal earlier due to non- availabilit