IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

th

ON THE 12 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT APPEAL No. 148 of 2024 K.K. DUBEY Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Ms.Warija Ghildiyal - Advocate for appellant.

Shri Suyash Mohan Guru Deputy Solicitor General for Union of India.

ORDER Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal The present writ appeal has been preferred under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assailing the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1251 of 2011, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein came to be dismissed.

2. The appellant was serving as Constable (General Duty) with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). He was initially appointed on 31.03.2004 and had rendered approximately seven years of service with an unblemished record. While posted at II Signal Battalion, CRPF, Hyderabad, the appellant applied for and was granted casual leave for a period of 15 days from 26.10.2009 to 12.11.2009. He was required to report back for duty on

12.11.2009 (afternoon). During the period of leave, the appellant’s newly born son, aged about 25 days, unfortunately expired on 09.11.2009. Owing to the sudden demise of his son, the appellant suffered severe mental shock. It is further the case of the appellant that his mother also suffered a paralytic attack during the said period and became bedridden. Due to the aforesaid personal circumstances, the appellant could not resume his duties on the due date and remained absent beyond the sanctioned leave period. Consequently, a charge-sheet dated 10.04.2010 was issued to him alleging unauthorized absence/overstaying of leave for a period of 140 days without intimation and failure to respond to communications sent by the department directing him to report for duty. A departmental enquiry was conducted pursuant thereto, and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges proved.

3. Based on the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 10.08.2010 removing the appellant from service. The statutory appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.12.2010.

4. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No.1251 of 2011 before this Court. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 15.12.2023, dismissed the writ petition holding that the penalty imposed upon the appellant was not disproportionate considering the fact that the appellant had overstayed leave for 140 days without any intimation and had failed to respond to repeated correspondences issued by the department. 5. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred the present writ appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.1251/2011 is unsustainable in law and on facts and deserves to be set aside.

6. It is contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant had overstayed the leave on account of circumstances beyond his control. During the sanctioned leave period, the appellant suffered the tragic demise of his 25 day old son, which caused severe mental trauma. It is further submitted that immediately thereafter, the appellant’s mother suffered a paralytic attack and became bedridden. In such extraordinary circumstances, the absence of the appellant could not have been termed as willful or deliberate. Learned counsel submits that the appellant voluntarily rejoined duties after 140 days of absence and had produced medical documents pertaining to his mother’s ailment as well as proof regarding the death of his son. Therefore, the element of intentional desertion or abandonment of service was completely absent. It is further argu