While courts generally do not interfere with findings of fact in disciplinary inquiries, a penalty of dismissal for unauthorised absence is reviewable if the disciplinary authority fails to exercise proportionality, ignores mitigating factors like medical evidence, or treats the absence as per se willful misconduct without detailed scrutiny.

1. This petition assails two orders arising out of disciplinary proceedings instituted against the Petitioner. The first is the order dated 22nd January, 2013 passed by the Vice-Chairman, Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board [“DAMB”], acting as the disciplinary authority, whereby the Petitioner was dismissed from service. The second is the order dated 2nd April, 2014 passed by the Secretary-cum-Commissioner (Development), Government of NCT of Delhi [“GNCTD”], whereby the Petitioner’s appeal was rejected and the penalty was upheld.

Factual Background

2. The Petitioner was initially engaged on 14th July, 1987 as a Peon on daily wages. The Respondents state that he was appointed on a regular basis in Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Najafgarh [“APMC”] with effect from 3rd March, 1996. It is, however, not in dispute that by the year 2002 he stood posted at Fish, Poultry & Egg Marketing Committee, Gazipur [“FP&EMC”] and was working in the cadre of Gateman/Peon.

3. The controversy arises from the Petitioner’s absence from duty with effect from 15th February, 2003. According to the Respondents, the Petitioner absented himself without “prior intimation/sanction” and did not report back despite repeated directions. The Respondents rely on a Show Cause Notice [“SCN”] dated 4th April, 2003, a memorandum dated 17th February, 2004, a further communication dated 28th August, 2004, another memorandum dated 16th January, 2005, and a public notice published on 16th July, 2005 in newspapers calling the Petitioner to resume duty.

4. The Petitioner does not dispute that he remained away from duty. His case is that such absence was occasioned by serious illness. The Counter Affidavit records that, vide letter dated 15th September, 2004, DAMB was informed that he remained ill from 15th March, 2003 to 14th September, 2004 and was undergoing treatment at MMG Hospital, Ghaziabad.

5. On 18th November, 2005, DAMB issued a charge-sheet memorandum under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [“CCS (CCA) Rules”] proposing a disciplinary inquiry against the Petitioner. The said memorandum stated that the Petitioner had remained “unauthorisedly absent from duty” since 15th February, 2003, thereby violating the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 [“CCS (Leave) Rules”] and the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 [“CCS (Conduct) Rules”].

6. It is stated that the Petitioner submitted a reply on 9th December, 2005. The Respondents, in their Counter Affidavit, do not dwell upon the contents of the said reply, but narrate the sequence of events by stating that the Petitioner had, at the relevant time, taken the position that he was suffering from illness and was undergoing treatment at MMG Hospital, Ghaziabad. Also, the earlier communications sent to the Petitioner had returned undelivered with the remark “the address is incomplete”.

7. The record thereafter reflects a somewhat convoluted sequence of events. According to the Respondents, the Petitioner submitted an application on 13th March, 2006 along with medical material covering the period up to 5th December, 2005, which indicated that he had been found fit to resume duty with effect from 6th December, 2005. As no material was furnished for the subsequent period, DAMB called upon him to explain his medical condition and thereafter issued a m