IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. NO. 2680 OF 2024 In the matter of an appeal under Article-4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 read with Clause-10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court from the order dated 31.07.2024 passed in WP(C) No.21369 of 2014 by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

Suresh Kumar Gautam …. Appellant -Versus-

Union of India & Others …. Respondents Advocates appeared in this case:

For Appellants : M/s. Saswati Mohapatra & N.R. Samal, Advocates For Respondents : Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi, DSGI assisted by Mr. S.K. Samantaray, CGC CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

J U D G M E N T

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing & Judgment :: 28.01.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PER DIXIT KRISHNA S. SHRIPAD,J Appellant-a CRPF Constable over stayed the leave for 147 days during the period between 11.7.2008 and 4.12.2008. He reported for duty on 5.12.2008 and in the interregnum he was on medical leave during the period between 11.6.2008 and 10.7.2008. In a disciplinary enquiry in which he participated, he took up the defense of ill health and medical treatment as the justification for over staying. The Inquiry Officer held the charge proved and submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority, who passed the punishment order of removal from service challenging to the same having been negatived by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)

No.21369 of 2014, this appeal is placed at our hands.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-delinquent submits that once the ill-health and medical treatment are demonstrated by the evidentiary material, removal from service constitutes an extreme punishment and therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in not setting it aside. In support of this contention, she presses into service Apex Court decision in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 178.

3. Learned DSGI Mr.P.K.Pahri assisted by CGCs on record appearing for the Union Government makes submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed. He contends that; it is not an ordinary service but paramilitary service, inasmuch as the appellant was a CRPF constable; in armed forces and paramilitary forces, overstaying leave is considered as a serious misconduct, inasmuch as it has potential for breeding indiscipline in the force and therefore, the authority having considered all aspects of the matter, has levied the punishment in question, which has been rightly upheld by the learned Single Judge. He also tells that once the misconduct is proved, what punishment should be awarded belongs to the domain of the employer and therefore, a Writ Court should not interfere in the matter. So contending he seeks dismissal of the appeal.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

4.1. In armed forces, paramilitary forces & police forces maintaining discipline is of utmost importance, cannot be denied. Overstaying leave is considered to be unauthorized absence and therefore, in employment sectors like this, it is treated as a serious delinquency. That being said, the gravity of delinquency should decide ideally speaking the nature of punishment. In other words, grave the misconduct, grave has to be the punishment. However, to this general view a few exceptions are recognized in service jurisprudence. In fact, justice Justice Rama Jois in his ’Services Under the State’ and Samaraditya Pal on ‘Law Relating to Public Service’ cite decisions of Apex Court in support of this view. Where the misconduct is held to be proved on the basis of a properly constituted inquiry, a Writ Court cannot undertake a deeper examination of such a finding, inasmuch as it is not an appell