Consider Magnitude & Degree Of Misconduct Before Imposing Punishment: Jharkhand HC Reinstates CRPF Personnel Dismissed For Absence, Orders Reconsideration

In a recent case, the Jharkhand High Court emphasized the importance of considering various factors before imposing punishment in disciplinary proceedings. The Court highlighted that while the petitioner had exceeded the leave period, it was important to acknowledge the circumstances surrounding this action.

Justice S.N. Pathak, presiding over the case, observed, “the overstay of leave by the petitioner was under the compelling circumstances. The finding of the inquiry officer was based on the fact that the application for extension of leave was rejected and hence, it is the duty of the petitioner to join the duty. Of course, it is the duty of the employee like the petitioner that too in a disciplined force to join immediately on the duty place, once leave period is exhausted.”

“But at the same time, it is also the obligation of the respondents before imposing the punishment to take into consideration major, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances after excluding the irrelevant factors. Admittedly, in the present case, the overstyal of leave by the petitioner is neither wilful nor deliberate; rather, it was beyond his control. Therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service is certainly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct which shocks the conscience of this Court.,” Justice Pathak added.

According to the case's factual background, Samlendra Kumar, the petitioner, was appointed as a Hawaldar in the Central Reserve Police Force. He took leave due to his mother's illness after obtaining approval from the appropriate authority. However, he failed to report for duty on the scheduled day.

The petitioner claimed to have applied for an extension of his leave period, citing his mother's worsening health and his own illness with jaundice. He asserts that his request for an extension was disregarded.

Contrarily, the respondents contend that they sent several letters to the petitioner's residential address, but he did not respond. Eventually, a warrant for his arrest was issued.

Subsequently, an ex-parte enquiry was conducted, resulting in his dismissal from service.

The Court deliberated on whether the termination order was justified due to the petitioner's failure to provide prior information about their absence. Additionally, it examined whether the petitioner's absenteeism was deliberate or stemmed from circumstances beyond their control.

In assessing this matter, the Court deemed it appropriate to ascertain whether the petitioner's absenteeism was intentional or a result of compelling circumstances.

Upon reviewing the inquiry report, the Court noted that while the charge of unauthorized absence was substantiated by the inquiry officer, the report also indicated that the petitioner had formally requested an extension of leave due to their mother's hospitalization, supported by medical documentation.

Furthermore, the Court observed that despite the petitioner's requests for leave extension, the competent authority denied them and instructed the petitioner to resume duty without addressing the requests for extension.

The Court further remarked that despite subsequent pleas from the petitioner for an extension, no decision was made on the matter, and the petitioner was simply directed to return to work.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. vs. Giriraj Sharma, emphasizing that when there's no deliberate intent to disobey a superior authority's order, dismissal as punishment is excessive.

Additionally, it drew upon judgments like Bhagat Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (AIR 1983 SC 454), S.R. Tiwari vs. Union of India (2013), Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India & Ors. (AIR 1987 SC 2386), and Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India & Anr. (2012), stating that these cases are pertinent as the dismissal order lacked evidence from the petitioner's side and disregarded medical certificates and responses submitted. The punishment disproportionately outweighed the charges.

Considering the circumstances, the Court inferred that the petitioner's absence wasn't intentional but due to compelling reasons. Yet, it clarified that under Article 226 of the Constitution, it cannot replace the disciplinary authority's decision on punishment. Thus, the Court deemed it suitable to refer the matter back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the punishment's severity.

While directing the petitioner to be reinstated to service, the Court held, “As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, observations, guidelines, the impugned penalty order dated 12.6.2010 passed by the Commandant, 189 Battalion, CRPF, Mahur (Assam) and the appellate order dated 29.12.2010 passed Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Agartalla Range, Tripura, are hereby quashed and set aside.”

“However, the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of lesser punishment considering the aforesaid facts and situation, in accordance with law. Let the entire exercise be undertaken by the respondents within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,” the court concluded while allowing the petition.

Case Title: Samlendra Kumar v. Union of India

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 60

Click here to Read Judgment