Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Naresh Wasudeo Khanzode, was appointed as a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on 08.08.2001. In August 2006, he sought leave due to his mother's ailment, which was sanctioned from 15.08.2006 to 03.09.2006. However, he overstayed the leave and remained unauthorizedly absent from duty from 04.09.2006 to 14.11.2006, a period of 72 days. On 12.12.2006, the Commandant of 122 Battalion imposed a punishment of one hour pack drill and line imprisonment for 21 days with forfeiture of pay for that period. On the same day, a memorandum of charge was served on the petitioner levelling two charges: unauthorized absence for 72 days and failure to accept the one hour pack drill order. A departmental enquiry was conducted, and despite service of notice, the petitioner failed to participate and did not examine any witnesses. The enquiry officer found the charges proved, and the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner's appeal and revision to the appellate and revisional authorities were dismissed. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders of dismissal, appeal, and revision. The main legal issue was whether the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct. The petitioner argued that the punishment was too harsh, while the respondents contended that the misconduct was grave and the punishment was proportionate. The court analyzed the facts and held that unauthorized absence for 72 days and refusal to obey a lawful order constitute grave misconduct. The court noted that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly, with notice served on the petitioner, who chose not to participate. The court found no procedural irregularity and held that the punishment of dismissal was not shockingly disproportionate. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the dismissal.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Unauthorized Absence - Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, Rules 1965 - Petitioner, a CRPF constable, overstayed sanctioned leave by 72 days and refused to undergo pack drill punishment - Enquiry conducted ex-parte after notice served - Held that unauthorized absence for 72 days and refusal to obey orders constitute grave misconduct justifying dismissal; punishment not disproportionate (Paras 1-6). B) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Article 226 - Scope - Court can interfere only if punishment is shockingly disproportionate or proceedings are vitiated by procedural irregularity - Held that no interference warranted as enquiry was fair and punishment commensurate with misconduct (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner for unauthorized absence and refusal to accept punishment is disproportionate and warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The orders of the disciplinary authority, appellate authority, and revisional authority are upheld.
Law Points
- Unauthorized absence from duty constitutes grave misconduct
- Disciplinary authority's decision not to be interfered with unless shockingly disproportionate
- Non-participation in enquiry does not vitiate proceedings if notice served
- Scope of judicial review under Article 226 limited to procedural fairness and proportionality
