26 years of Service of Constable forfeited for taking Medical Leave, Court rules in favor
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled in favor of a constable whose 26 years of service were forfeited after he took 15 days of unsanctioned leave due to illness. The Court described the punishment as excessive, disproportionate, and arbitrary, stating that it undermined the rehabilitative goal of a welfare state.
Justice Arun Monga, who delivered the judgment, emphasized that punishing an employee for taking leave due to health issues goes against the principles of proportional justice. He argued that disciplinary actions should aim to correct behavior, not impose irreversible penalties that could end a person’s career. The Court also highlighted that excessive punishment could discourage employees from reporting health problems or asking for leave in the future, fearing harsh consequences.
The case involved a constable who had been hired in 1979. After serving for 26 years, he fell ill in 2004 due to an old injury and took leave, notifying his superior and providing medical documents to support his absence. However, upon resuming his duties, he was issued a notice under Rule 86(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, and was asked to explain his leave. Despite submitting his explanation, the authorities treated his leave as willful absence and ordered the forfeiture of his 26 years of service.
The constable challenged this decision in the Court, arguing that the punishment was too harsh. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the constable had failed to inform anyone about his leave while on duty at a hospital, where he was responsible for monitoring prisoner patients. They claimed this could have led to serious consequences, such as prisoners escaping.
The Court, however, disagreed with this reasoning. It stated that forfeiting the entire past service of the constable was akin to treating him as a new employee on minimum pay, which was even worse than dismissal. The Court explained that dismissal would not affect the employee’s pension and other retirement benefits, but forfeiting the service left the constable with only 13 years of service until his retirement.
The Court emphasized the importance of proportionality in punishment, noting that administrative actions should not impose penalties that are out of proportion to the severity of the misconduct. It also pointed out that the constable’s absence did not lead to any negative consequences, such as the escape of prisoners or a security breach. The respondents’ speculative claims about potential risks were deemed insufficient to justify such a harsh penalty.
Additionally, the Court identified procedural errors in the order. It noted that according to Rule 16(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, no penalties could be imposed without a proper inquiry. The Court also ruled that medical records, even if incomplete, should be given the benefit of the doubt unless there is expert evaluation to challenge their authenticity.
In conclusion, the Court ruled that a fairer, more balanced approach was needed, one that prioritized rehabilitation and fairness. The petition was allowed, and the orders forfeiting the constable’s service were quashed. The constable is now entitled to all the benefits associated with his 26 years of service.
