Disciplinary authorities must verify medical certificates before discarding them to establish willful unauthorized absence.

The Petitioner, a Constable in the CRPF, was granted medical leave from December 13 to December 17, 2005

He failed to report for duty on December 18, 2005, citing a deterioration in health (Typhoid and Hepatitis) and subsequent admission to various government hospitals

The Respondents declared the Petitioner a deserter and initiated departmental enquiry proceedings on April 4, 2006

Despite several communications from the Petitioner informing the Enquiry Officer (EO) of his ailment and submitting medical records, the enquiry was conducted ex-parte

On August 4, 2006, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) passed an order removing the Petitioner from service, noting the medical records but concluding that he was intentionally avoiding duty

The Petitioner’s statutory appeal was rejected on June 30, 2011

The Petitioner challenged these orders, alleging a violation of the principles of natural justice and improper conduct of the enquiry

1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority and Enquiry Officer were justified in discarding the medical certificates produced by the Petitioner without verifying their veracity

2. Whether unauthorized absence from duty automatically warrants removal from service without proving the absence was willful and deliberate

3. Whether the ex-parte enquiry proceedings were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice

The Court relied on the principle that for unauthorized absence to attract punishment, it must be "willful and deliberate"

It applied the precedent in Chhel Singh v. MGB Gramin Bank, Pali and Ors. (2014), which held that Disciplinary Authorities cannot disbelieve medical certificates without valid reasons or proof of fabrication

Furthermore, it cited Union of India & Ors v. I.S. Singh (1994), establishing that an Enquiry Officer is duty-bound to consider a delinquent official's plea of ailment and should either demand medical certificates or direct a medical examination by a specified officer rather than proceeding ex-parte

The Court observed that both the EO and the DA were in possession of the Petitioner's medical records and communications regarding his illness prior to the final order

The DA, in paragraph 4 of the removal order, acknowledged the Petitioner's treatment for Typhoid and Hepatitis at government hospitals but summarily dismissed these facts as a "device to avoid duty"

The Court held that it was not legally permissible for the authorities to brush aside certificates from government hospitals without first ascertaining their authenticity or veracity

The Court further noted that the EO failed to address the Petitioner's requests for deferment in the enquiry report

Because the Petitioner’s absence was tied to documented medical issues, the Respondents failed to prove the absence was "willful," rendering the ex-parte proceedings a serious breach of the principles of natural justice

The Appellate Authority’s order was also found deficient for being "cryptic" and lacking reasons

The Court held that the respondents committed a serious breach of natural justice by proceeding ex-parte without verifying the Petitioner's medical defense

The Respondents were directed to reinstate the Petitioner in service and were granted liberty to hold a fresh enquiry specifically to ascertain the veracity of the medical records

The decision regarding the period during which the Petitioner remained out of service was left to the competent authority based on the outcome of the fresh enquiry