The Jharkhand High Court recently made observations regarding the imposition of punishment in disciplinary proceedings. The court emphasized the importance of considering the magnitude and degree of misconduct, along with relevant circumstances, before imposing a punishment.
Case Background
The petitioner, Samlendra Kumar, was appointed as a Hawaldar in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). He took leave due to his mother’s illness, which was sanctioned by the competent authority. However, the petitioner failed to report on the designated day. The petitioner claimed that he had requested an extension of the leave period due to his mother’s deteriorating health and his own illness, but his request was not considered. On the other hand, the respondents stated that several letters were sent to the petitioner’s residential address, but he did not respond. A warrant of arrest was also issued, and an ex-parte inquiry was conducted, leading to the petitioner’s dismissal from service.
Court’s Analysis
The court examined whether the termination order was justified based on the petitioner’s failure to provide prior information about his absence. Additionally, the court considered whether the petitioner’s absenteeism was willful or due to compelling circumstances beyond his control. The inquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of unauthorized absence but also noted that the petitioner had requested an extension of leave, providing medical reports to support his claim. The court observed that the disciplinary authority rejected the extension request without passing any order and directed the petitioner to report for duty. The court also referred to Supreme Court decisions that emphasized the need for proportionate punishment and the exclusion of irrelevant factors in disciplinary proceedings.
Court’s Decision
The Jharkhand High Court concluded that the petitioner’s overstay of leave was not willful or deliberate but rather beyond his control. The court found the punishment of dismissal from service to be disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct. Therefore, the court remitted the case back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the punishment and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service.