1. Disciplinary proceedings — Unauthorized absence from duty — Penalty of dismissal — Challenge to proportionality. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
B. Anand, Member (A)
Manoj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondent
O.A. No. of 2025
1. Disciplinary proceedings — Unauthorized absence from duty — Penalty of dismissal — Challenge to proportionality. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
2. Applicant claims absence due to medical reasons; respondents contend certificates were afterthought and not produced during inquiry. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
3. Partial allowance — Direction to reconsider penalty of dismissal and impose lesser penalty including compulsory retirement. (Para 26 , 27 )
Yes, the Tribunal held dismissal harsh and disproportionate, directing reconsideration for a lesser penalty including compulsory retirement. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 )
No, authority should not question correctness without verification; if in doubt, can obtain second medical opinion under Rule 19(3) of CCS (Leave) Rules. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 )
DER Hon’ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A):
1.The present Original Application (O.A.) is the second round of litigation. In the first round, this Tribunal, vide order dated 12.12.2018, dismissed the O.A. as being devoid of merit. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant approached the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. (C) No. 9786/2019. The Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 18.11.2024, quashed and set aside the said order and remanded the matter to this Tribunal for fresh consideration, primarily on the ground that the earlier order was unreasoned and, therefore, unsustainable in law.
2. Pursuant thereto, the matter was heard afresh. Written submissions were filed by both parties, and after hearing learned counsels at length, orders were reserved.
3. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the applicant was initially recruited on 12.08.1991 as a Constable in the Delhi Police. While serving in that capacity, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for remaining absent from duty in an unauthorized and willful manner. The allegations state that, while posted in the East District, the applicant failed to report for duty on 25.04.2007 and was accordingly marked absent vide DD No. 51 dated 25.04.2007, East District Lines. He resumed duty vide DD No. 34 dated 10.05.2007, after remaining absent for a period of 15 days, 19 hours, and 35 minutes without authorization and wilfully.
4. Thereafter, the applicant was transferred from the East District to the Security Unit, where he again remained absent from duty on several occasions without informing the department. The respondents attempted to serve absentee notices upon the applicant on seven occasions, directing him to resume duty immediately, failing which disciplinary action would be taken against him. However, only on two occasions were the notices received by the applicant himself, and on one occasion by his nephew.
5. The details of the occasions on which the applicant remained absent without intimation and the issuance of seven absentee notices by his superiors directing him to resume duty are tabulated below:
6. Accordingly, a Departmental Enquiry (D.E.) was initiated against the applicant, and an Inquiry Officer (I.O.) was appointed, who served the summary of allegations on the applicant 09.05.2011. As the applicant did not admit the allegations, the I.O. proceeded with the enquiry and recorded the statements of four prosecution witnesses. Based on the evidence on record, the I.O., after obtaining approval of the competent disciplinary authority, served the charge upon the applicant on 09.06.2011. The applicant submitted his written defense on 18.07.2011. The enquiry was concluded, and the I.O. submitted his report on 12.12.2011, holding the charge as “proved” and concluding as follows:
“On the basis of evidences on record as well as previous absentee record of 85 different occasions of the delinquent Const. (Ex.) Manoj Kumar No. 1734/E (Now 1663/Sec.) (PIS No. 28911283) in which he has been awarded major punishment like Forfeiture of Two years Approved Service Permanently,Leave Without Pay, Period Not Spent on Duty, Dies Non etc.
Apart from this, during course of enquiry, the delinquent constable was also marked absent vide DD No. 17/DO/V.P.House/Sec. dated 16.02.2011. Although, he joined the DE proceedings but he is running absent from duty from V.P. House/Security since 16/02/2011 till date. This act of the delinquent constable also shows that despite awarding major punishment, the delinquent constable did not ready to mend his way and continued to be in the habit of absenting himself willfully and unauthorizedly. It clearly shows that the delinquent constable is an incorrigibletype of person and a habitual absentee.
As such, I am constrained to hold the ‘Charge’ against Const.(Exe.) Manoj Kumar No. 1734/E (Now1663/Sec.) (PIS No.28911283) is ‘Stand Proved.”
7. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer and, vide order dated 20.04.2012, imposed the penalty of dismissa
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top